Skip to main content

Full text of "The early history of the house of Savoy (1000-1233)"

See other formats 


LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

RIVERSIDE 


THE    EARLY    HISTORY 

OF  THE 

HOUSE    OF    SAVOY 


CAMBRIDGE   UNIVERSITY   PRESS 

ILonDon:    FETTER   LANE,   E.G. 

C.   F.   CLAY,   Manager 


«?tiinl)urgfj:    loo,  PRINCES  STREET 

Brrlin:  A.  ASHER  AND  CO. 

Ittpjic:    F.  A.  BROCKHAUS 

i^cto  gorfe:    G.   P.    PUTNAM'S   SONS 

JSombaa  anU  Calcutta:    MACMILLAN  AND  CO.,  Ltd. 


All  rights  reserved 


THE    EARLY    HISTORY 

OF   THE 

HOUSE    OF    SAVOY 

(1000—1233) 


d<' 


'.'   W.    PREVITE-ORTON,    M.A. 

Fellow  of  St  John's  College,  Cambridge 


Cambridge : 

at  the  University  Press 

1912 


T7f 


PRINTED   BY  JOHN   CLAY,    M.A. 
AT   THE   UNIVERSITY   PRESS 


PREFACE 

THE  following  pages  contain  a  study  on  the  history  of 
the  House  of  Savoy  until  the  year  1233.  Although  many 
works  on  portions  or  on  aspects  of  this  period  have  been  written, 
and  though  it  has  formed  a  part  of  more  than  one  history  with 
wider  scope,  such  as  Cibrario's  Storia  della  Monarchia  di  Savoia, 
yet  there  seemed  to  be  room  for  a  new  investigation,  which 
should  at  one  and  the  same  time  treat  the  subject  with  a  full 
discussion  of  its  details  and  with  a  comprehensive  view  of  the 
period  as  a  whole. 

In  doing  so  I  have  put  aside  the  idea  of  writing  a  history  of 
the  strictly  literary  kind.  The  story  could  be  made  connected 
only  by  missing  out  the  long  succession  of  isolated  details,  which 
yet  form  the  greater  part  of  our  knowledge  regarding  it,  and  by 
relegating  to  appendices  the  endless  discussions  to  which  those 
details  give  rise.  This  could  not  be  done  satisfactorily  save  in 
a  work  dealing  with  a  longer  series  of  years  and  thus  able  to 
employ  an  ampler  stride  in  the  marshalling  of  events.  That 
alternative  being  excluded,  I  have  taken  as  my  model  in  a 
general  way  the  Jahrbiicher  on  the  Holy  Roman  Emperors. 
That  is,  I  have  gone  plainly  on,  discussing  events  and  problems 
as  the  times  brought  them  to  light  and  endeavouring  to  be  com- 
plete and  omit  nothing.  An  absolute  chronological  order  I  did 
not  try  to  preserve,  for,  especially  in  the  later  chapters,  the 
various  aspects  of  a  prince's  reign  fell  into  sections  with  too 
little  organic  connection  for  that,  and  to  follow  the  sequence  of 
time  would  be  merely  confusing.  Here,  too,  the  fragmentary 
character  of  the  evidence  would  quite  preclude  any  attempt  to 
give  a  year-by-year  account.  On  the  other  hand,  one  principal 
feature  of  the  JahrbiicJier  I  have  been  careful  to  imitate.  There 
will  be  found  in  the  notes  all  the  important  passages  of  narrative 
or  legal  nature  on  which  the  text  is  founded',  not  merely 
references  to  them. 

^  This  statement  does  not  apply  to  mere  anecdotes,  which  do  not  establish  facts 
of  wider  bearing,  or  to  extra-Savoyard  history  which  is  taken  from  the  Jahrbiicher  or 
other  authorities. 


vi  Preface 

The  reign  of  Count  Thomas,  however,  which  is  far  more 
fully  known  to  us,  gives  greater  opportunities  for  selection  than 
the  preceding  period.  The  lines  of  social  development  are 
becoming  specialized,  and  in  particular  the  Count's  gifts  to 
religious  foundations,  mainly  to  the  recluse  Carthusians,  have 
only  an  occasional  interest  for  his  history.  I  have  therefore 
made  no  attempt  at  a  complete  commentary  on  these  unpolitical 
documents  of  his.  In  like  manner,  since  the  narrative  sources 
become  here  and  there  quite  lengthy,  a  full  transcript  of  the 
texts  concerning  Savoy  has  not  been  given  for  his  reign.  They 
are  easy  to  find  and  no  longer  absolutely  buried  in  other  matter. 
Still  even  with  these  deductions  I  trust  that  everything  essential 
to  enable  the  reader  to  test  the  history  has  been  provided. 

The  history  of  a  country  like  Savoy,  which  owed  its  im- 
portance to  its  being  on  a  border  and  traversed  by  two  European 
highroads,  is  naturally  in  frequent  connection  with  the  general 
history  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire.  Consequently,  I  have 
been  obliged  from  time  to  time  to  insert  fragments  of  the 
imperial  annals  ;  but  I  have  done  so  only  when  they  coincided 
with  those  of  Savoy,  as  seemed  most  advisable  in  a  study  with 
such  a  definite  object  as  this.  In  fact,  the  history  of  surrounding 
lands  has  been  introduced  but  in  so  far  as  it  explains  the  events 
and  conditions  of  Savoy. 

The  growth  and  decay  of  institutions  have  also  offered  many 
difficulties.  Savoy  doubtless  varied  very  little  from  the  neigh- 
bouring states  in  its  development  through  and  beyond  feudalism. 
It  seemed  therefore  permissible  to  interpret  the  scattered  hints 
in  Savoyard  documents  by  the  generalized  statements  given  in 
other  works.  On  the  other  hand,  feudal  institutions  were  as 
fluid  in  their  nature  as  any  others.  In  consequence,  some 
advantage  appeared  to  be  gained,  if  those  hints  were  grouped 
severally  under  the  various  reigns,  in  order  to  see  what  signs  of 
change  were  detected  by  thus  isolating  the  evidence ;  and  some- 
thing, I  hope,  may  have  been  attained  by  this  method.  But 
with  the  richer  material  which  is  to  hand  regarding  the  condi- 
tions existing  under  Humbert  III  and  Thomas,  the  positive 
results  established  from  the  evidence  during  former  reigns 
seemed  well  to  combine,  and  thus,  while  as  little  as  possible  of 
the  evidence  has  been  repeated,  there  has  been  some  repetition  of 
the  inductions  from  it.     Besides  indulging  the  hope  of  throwing 


Preface  vii 

a  little  light  on  the  process  of  growth  in  a  feudal  state,  it  seemed 
to  me  that  it  was  not  possible  to  estimate  the  several  reigns  with- 
out a  complete  display  of  the  evidence  relating  to  each  respec- 
tively, and  that  it  was  better  to  tolerate  the  defect  of  repetition, 
than  to  reserve  all  the  institutional  information  till  the  end. 

Our  great  lack  in  early  Savoyard  history  is  that  of  any  con- 
nected narrative  in  the  authorities.  The  Chroniqiies  ^de  Savoye 
were  compiled  in  the  fifteenth  century  out  of  a  mere  wreck  of 
generally  inaccurate  traditions ;  and  an  immense  deal  of  twaddle, 
in  the  worst  taste  of  knight-errant  tales,  inflated  the  mass.  Even 
the  list  of  rulers  there  is  only  complete  from  Humbert  II  ;  and 
throughout  this  early  period  the  Chroniqiies  must  be  used  with 
the  utmost  caution.  Thus  for  contemporary  narrative  we  are 
thrown  back  on  one  or  two  lives  of  ecclesiastics,  a  few  letters 
and  scattered  notices  in  foreign  chronicles.  For  genealogical 
and  institutional  history,  with  side  lights  on  politics,  we  have  of 
course  the  charters^  At  the  best,  however,  it  has  been  making 
bricks  without  straw  and  with  an  inadequate  supply  of  clay. 
But  I  ought  to  say  that  the  chronicled  notices  we  possess  seem 
as  a  rule  remarkably  credible  and  for  the  most  part  accurate. 
Perhaps  they  do  not  say  enough  to  go  very  far  wrong.  Yet  I 
may  mention — to  take  an  instance  which  has  been  impugned — 
the  vivid  truth  of  Lampert's  narrative  of  the  crossing  of  the 
Mont  Cenis  Pass  in  1077-.  The  monk  of  Hersfeld  seems  to 
have  had  the  tale  orally  from  some  subordinate  in  Henry's  suite, 
whose  knowledge  of  the  negotiations  might  be  poor,  but  who  did 
know  the  physical  facts  of  the  journey. 

It  is  difficult  to  stop  in  giving  a  list  of  the  more  helpful  of 
the  works  I  have  used.  First  and  foremost  comes  Carutti's 
Regesta,  which  has  saved  me  many  a  long  and  weary  search, 
many  omissions  and  many  piecemeal  views.  That  said,  I  must 
deplore  the  defects  of  his  book,  the  misprints,  inadequate  sum- 
maries and  some  important  omissions.  It  has  been  necessary 
practically  to  collate  all  the  documents  referring  to  my  period. 

^  In  this  connection  the  execrable  Latin  of  the  eleventh-century  Piedmontese 
charters  should  be  specially  mentioned.  The  knowledge  of  the  meaning  of  the  case 
endings  seems  almost  extinct  among  the  local  notaries,  who  show  an  interesting 
preference  for  the  ablative,  due  partly  to  the  influence  of  their  Romance  dialect, 
partly  perhaps  to  the  more  pompous  sound  of,  say,  jugalibus  as  compared  with 
jugales.     Cf.  pp.    1 10  n.  4,   137  n.   5,    140  n.   i. 

"^  See  p.   239,  n.  i. 


viii  Preface 

But  the  numbers  it  affixes  to  the  several  documents  have  served 
so  well  for  a  docket  and  brief  title  to  each  of  them,  that  I  have 
always  used  them,  giving  at  the  same  time  the  reference  to  the 
best  published  full  text.  The  Siipplemento,  I  should  add,  has 
few  misprints  and  far  more  satisfactory  summaries.  Next  I  must 
mention  the  Biblioteca  della  societd  storica  subalpina,  edited  by 
Prof.  Gabotto,  a  mine  of  documents  and  valuable  monographs. 
Other  works  may  be  grouped  according  to  their  country  of 
origin.  Terraneo's  Adelaide  Illustrata,  not  yet  antiquated,  the 
works  of  Cibrario,  Carutti,  Count  Cipolla,  Prof.  Gabotto,  Count 
Baudi  di  Vesme  and  the  modern  Piedmontese  school.  Padre 
Savio,  Count  de  Gerbaix-Sonnaz  and  Prof  Pivano,  represent 
Italy ;  and  to  them  my  obligations  are  heavy.  Of  Swiss 
origin,  I  may  note  Gingins-la-Sarra  and  Wurstemberger.  The 
latter's  Graf  Peter  der  Zweite  is  perhaps  the  most  valuable 
book  on  Early  Savoy  which  has  been  written,  patient,  exact, 
complete,  and  informed  by  a  cautious,  cool  judgement.  Among 
French  scholars,  Samuel  Guichenon  was  the  father  of  scientific 
Humbertine  history;  M.  de  Manteyer  has  lifted  the  study  of 
Humbertine  origins  on  to  a  new  plane;  without  the  documents 
published  by  Chevalier  and  the  two  Guigues,  we  should  be  in  a 
bad  case  for  evidence;  and  M.  Poupardin's  study  on  Burgundy  is 
of  the  greatest  service  as  regards  that  kingdom.  Two  German 
historians  call  for  special  mention  ;  Prof  Bresslau,  to  whose 
share  of  the  Jahrbilcher  every  one  who  treats  of  Savoy  or 
Piedmont  must  owe  an  enormous  debt ;  and  Herr  Hellmann, 
who  threw  new  light  on  the  foreign  relations  of  Savoy. 

There  remains  the  pleasant  task  of  chronicling  my  personal 
obligations.  To  Prof.  Tout  I  owe  much  valuable  criticism  and 
help.  Like  other  researchers  in  the  State  Archives  of  Turin  I 
met  in  my  two  visits  there  with  the  ready  assistance  of  the 
officials  in  charge.  My  thanks  are  due  to  all,  but  especially  to  my 
friend,  Signor  Mario  Bori,  for  his  continual  kindness  and  courtesy. 
To  Signor  Bori  also  I  owe  the  transcript  of  No.  xiv  in  the  Ap- 
pendix of  Documents  as  well  as  some  collations  in  No.  XI.  Lastly, 
I  wish  to  express  my  indebtedness  to  the  officials  of  the  Cam- 
bridge University  Press.  The  proofs  have  been  corrected  and 
annotated  by  the  readers  with  an  admirable  care  and  skill. 

C.  W.  P.  O. 

26  June  191 2. 


TABLE    OF   CONTENTS 
CHAPTER   I 

HUMBERT   I   WHITEHANDS 
Section  I.     Burgundy,  888-1000  (1-7). 

Jurane  Burgundy  under  Rudolf  I.  Acquisition  of  Provence  and  the  Aargau  by 
Rudolf  II  (1-2).  Name  of  Burgundy  for  the  completed  kingdom  (2).  General 
causes  of  Burgundy's  weakness  (2-3).  Special  causes.  Decay  of  the  State  and 
growth  of  feudalism.  Small  royal  power  in  Provence.  The  ravages  and  expulsion 
of  the  Saracens  (3-6). 

•  Conrad  the  Peaceful's  reign  and  his  dependence  on  Germany  (6).  Rudolf  III 
attempts  to  coerce  the  greater  nobles  and  fails  (6).  Power  of  the  local  Counts 
c.   1000  (7). 

Section  II.     Humbert  Whitehands  in  Burgundian 
Politics  (7-41). 

Rudolf  III  begins  to  confer  counties  on  the  Bishops  (7-9).  He  resides  chiefly  in 
Jurane  Burgundy  (9).  The  Empress  Adelaide  effects  a  reconciliation  between  him 
and  his  vassals  (9-10).  Rudolf  III  is  supported  by  two  great  families,  the  Anselmids 
and  the  Humbertines  (10):  who  possess  several  bishoprics  (11).  Otto-William  of 
'Tranche  Comte"  (11-12).  Henry  II  becomes  King  of  Germany  and  claims  the 
Imperial  succession  (12-13).     He  occupies  Basel  (13). 

Rudolf  III  marries  Ermengarde  (13-14):  and  grants  her  the  counties  of  Vienne 
and  Sermorens,  etc.  (14-15).  Henry  II  renews  his  Burgundian  schemes,  and  makes 
treaty  of  Strasburg  (1016)  with  Rudolf  III  (15-17).  Henry  fails  against  Otto- William 
and  the  treaty  of  Strasburg  is  abrogated  (17-18).  Rudolf  and  Henry  make  a  new 
treaty  at  Mayence  (ioi8j,  but  Henry  fails  again  against  the  Burgundians  (18).  Grant 
of  county  of  Vaud  to  the  Bishop  of  Lausanne  (18-19).  Eudes  II  of  Troyes  claims  the 
succession  in  Burgundy  (19).  The  county  of  Vienne  is  granted  (1023)  to  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Vienne.  Supposed  similar  grant  of  Aosta  to  its  Bishop  is  baseless  (19-20). 
The  Humbertine  Burchard  becomes  Bishop  of  Aosta.  Humbert  Whitehands  is  Count 
of  Aosta  in  1024  (20-1).  The  Peace  of  God  is  reestablished  in  the  Second  Council 
of  Anse  1025  (21-2).  The  oath  taken  there  (probably  by  a  Humbertine)  (22-4). 
Conrad  IPs  accession  in  Germany.  He  shares  Henry  IPs  conception  of  the  Holy 
Roman  Empire  and  claims  to  be  heir  of  Burgundy  (24-5).  He  seizes  Basel  (25). 
He  is  crowned  King  of  Italy  (1026).  Rudolf's  embassy  to  him.  Rudolf  attends 
Conrad's  imperial  coronation,  agreement  with  Cnut  re  the  Great  St  Bernard,  etc. 
(16-7).     Conrad  is  recognized  as  heir  of  Burgundy  at  Basel  (27). 

Deaths  of  Burchard  II  of  Lyons  and  Burchard  of  Vienne;  Burchard  of  Aosta 
obtains  the  see  of  Lyons  (28-9).  Further  Humbertine  Bishops  (29).  Foundation 
of  Talloires  (29-30).     Rudolf  dies,  Eudes   HI    invades  Burgundy   (30).     Humbert 

«5 


X  Table  of  Contents 

Whitehands  joins  Conrad's  party  (31).  Vienne  surrenders  to  Eudes.  Conrad  is 
crowned  at  Payerne,  but  his  campaign  fails  {31-2).  Ermengarde  and  Whitehands 
meet  Conrad  at  Zurich  (32-3).  Conrad  attacks  Burgundy  from  both  Germany  and 
Italy;  Whitehands  takes  part;  Eudes  is  driven  out  (33-6).  Did  Whitehands  now 
become  Count  of  Maurienne  ?  (36-7).  Burchard  III  of  Lyons  deposed  (37).  Assembly 
of  Soleure  (37-8).  Position  of  the  Humbertines  in  1039  (38).  Henry  III.  The 
Truce  of  God  (38-9).  Whitehands'  last  years,  Henry  Ill's  policy,  Whitehands' 
death  (39-41)- 

Section  III.     The  Problem  of  the  two  Humberts  (41-74). 

Gingins  distinguished  two  contemporary  branches  of  the  Humbertines  (41-2). 
Carutti's  scheme  of  the  two  branches  (42-3).  Count  di  Vesme's  ditto  (43).  Labruzzi 
and  de  Manteyer  declare  for  the  single  family-tree  (43-4).  Method  here  adopted  (44). 
Register  of  Humbertine  documents  relevant  to  the  discussion  (45-57).  Data  to  be 
derived  from  these  documents  (57-65).  Two  Humbertine  genealogies  are  easily 
derived  from  these  data  (65-7).  Further  fragments  of  Humbertine  genealogies 
derived  from  these  data  (67).  The  Anselmid  genealogy  (67-8).  Discussion  of  the 
rival  Humbertine  genealogies :  (i)  Topographical  indications  (68-70).  (2)  Chrono- 
logical ditto  (70-2).  (3)  Indications  from  the  titles  of  the  homonyms  (72-3).  (4)  Is 
it  possible  to  isolate  the  homonyms?  (73-4).     Conclusions  (74). 

Section  IV.     The  Possessions  of  Humbert 
Whitehands  (74-100). 

Plan  of  the  inquiry  (74-5):  (i)  The  Lyonnais,  Section  A  (75-7).  (2)  The 
Lyonnais,  Section  B  (77-8).  (3)  Sermorens  (78-80).  (4)  The  Viennois  proper 
(80-3).  (5)  The  County  of  Belley  (83-5).  (6)  Pagus  Equestricus  (85-6).  (7)  The 
Genevois  (86-8).  (8)  Aosta  (88-91).  (9)  The  Vallais,  the  Abbey  of  St  Maurice 
and  Old-Chablais  (91-4).  (10)  Savoy  proper  (94-6).  (11)  Maurienne  (96-9). 
Tarentaise  (99).     Conclusions  (100). 

Section  V.     The  Ancestry  of  Humbert  Whitehands  (100-20). 

Difficulty  of  the  problem ;  Tale  in  the  Chrouiques  (loo-i).  Four  principal 
theories;  method  adopted  in  discussing  them  (101-2).  Signor  Labruzzi's  scheme 
(102-4).  The  schemes  of  Gingins-la-Sarra,  Count  di  Vesme  and  Count  di  Gerbaix- 
Sonnaz  (104-9).  Carutti's  scheme  (109-13).  M.  de  Manteyer's  scheme  (i  13-19). 
Conclusion  ( 1 1 9-20) . 

Section  VI.     The  Sons  of  Humbert  Whitehands  (120-4). 

Amadeus  I  (120-2).  Buichard  III  of  Lyons  (122-3).  Aymon  of  Sion  (123). 
Marquess  Oddo  I  (123-4). 

CHAPTER   II 

THE   COUNTESS   ADELAIDE   OF   TURIN 
Section  I.     North  Italy  under  the  Ottos  (125-9). 

Special  conditions  of  Italy  during  the  anarchy.  Bishops,  Towns  and  Marquesses 
(125-6).  The  Ottoman  policy  in  regard  to  the  Bishops  and  Marquesses  (126-7). 
More  peaceful  condition  of  Italy  (127-8).  Changes  among  the  nobles.  Growth  of 
the  cities  (128-9). 


Table  of  Contents  xi 

Section  II.     The  Rise  of  the  Ardoinids  of  Turin  (129-56). 

Introductory  (129-32).  Tale  of  the  acquisition  of  Aurade  by  the  Ardoinids. 
Terraneo's  conjecture  of  their  ancestry  (132-5).  Aurade  and  the  Ardoinid  lands  there 
(135-6).  The  Alineids.  Roger  II  and  his  children  (136-7).  Ardoin  III  Glabrio. 
He  obtains  Turin.  King  Hugh's  campaign  against  Freinet.  Ardoin  III  becomes 
Marquess;  structure  of  the  mark  of  Turin  (137-42).  Otto  the  Great  invades 
Italy  and  marries  Adelaide;  tale  of  Glabrio's  share  in  these  events  (142-3).  Otto 
the  Great  ends  the  Hungarian  ravages  (143).  Otto  the  Great  founds  the  Holy 
Roman  Empire.  Ardoin  III  and  Breme  Abbey.  Ardoin  III  obtains  county  of 
Pavia  ;  Otto's  attitude  towards  him  (144-5).  Expulsion  of  the  Saracens;  Ardoin  III 
seizes  the  Val  di  Susa  (145-7).  Ardoin  Ill's  death  and  children,  Manfred  I,  Oddo  I 
and  the  new  monastic  policy  (148-50).  Methods  of  inheritance  practised  by  the 
Ardoinids;    mixture  of  equal  inheritance  and  primogeniture  (151-6). 

Appendix:  The  evidence  for  the  Ardoinid  possessions  (157-65). 

Section  III.     The  later  Ardoinids  (165-89). 

Ulric-Manfred  and  his  brothers  (165-6).  Growth  of  episcopal  jurisdiction. 
Discontent  of  the  secundi  milites  (166-7).  Revolt  of  Ardoin  of  Ivrea.  Ulric- 
Manfred's  attitude  (167-8).  Ardoin  crowned;  war  with  Henry  II;  Ulric-Manfred 
pro-Henrician  ;  his  war  with  Arnulf  of  Milan  over  Asti  (168-70).  Henry  II  crowned 
Emperor;  death  of  Ardoin  (170).  Ulric-Manfred  and  the  mark  of  Ivrea;  he 
becomes  a  malcontent;  local  war  (170-3).  Henry  II's  return  to  Italy;  Ulric- 
Manfred's  fictitious  sale  of  his  lands  (173-4).  Henry  IPs  death;  vain  attempt  to 
make  William  of  Aquitaine  king  (174-6).  Conrad  II,  King  of  Italy,  reconciliation 
with  Ulric-Manfred;  his  West- Alpine  policy;  capture  of  Ivrea;  imperial  coronation 
(176-8).  Foundation  of  S.  Michele  della  Chiusa  (178-81).  The  Ardoinids  and 
Fruttuaria  and  Breme;  death  of  Ardoin  V  (181-2).  Foundation  of  Caramagna  and 
S.  Giusto  di  Susa  (182-4).  Ulric-Manfred,  Odilo  of  Breme  and  the  Turinese  (184-5). 
Ulric-Manfred  and  the  heretics  of  Monforte  (185-7).  Ulric- Manfred's  death  and 
children  (187-9). 

Section   IV.      The   Marriages  of  Countess  Adelaide  (185-213). 

Problem  of  the  single  or  two  Adelaides  (185-6).  Method  followed  (186).  Register 
of  the  relevant  documents  (187-98).  The  charter  of  Frossasco  (186,  199-204). 
.Signori  Provana's  and  Labruzzi's  arguments  discussed  (204-9).  ^^'  Renaux's  argu- 
ments discussed  (209-1 1).  Prof.  Gabotto's  arguments  discussed  (21 1-13).  Conclusions 
(21.^)- 

Section  V.     Countess  Adelaide  and  her  Husbands  (213-23). 

Adelaide  succeeds  to  the  mark.  War  between  the  capiianei  and  the  secundi 
milites.  Death  of  Bishop  Alric  (213-16).  Adelaide's  and  Iminula's  marriages.  Duke 
Herman  is  made  Marquess  of  Turin  (216-17).  Conrad  II  quarrels  with  Archbishop 
Aribert  ;  he  makes  the  benefices  of  the  secundi  milites  hereditary.  Diploma  for  the 
Astigians  (217-19).  Aribert's  treaty  with  Eudes  II  is  frustrated  by  Bertha  of  Turin 
(219-20).  Conrad's  diploma  for  S.  Giusto  di  Susa  (220).  Deaths  of  Duke  Herman, 
Conrad  II  and  Bertha  of  Turin  (220-1).  Adelaide  mairies  Henry  of  Montferrat 
(221).  Adelaide  mariies  Oddo  I  of  Savoy;  Henry  HPs  approval  (221).  The 
Canons  of  Oulx  (221-2).  Henry  III  betrothes  his  son  to  Bertha  of  Savoy  (222). 
Oddo  I  dies.     The  first  Rectorate  of  Burgundy  (222-3). 


xii  Table  of  Contents 

Section  VI.     Countess  Adelaide  and  her  Sons  (223-51). 

Marquess  Peter  I  and  his  brothers  (223-4).  The  mint  of  Aiguebelle  ;  loss  of 
Oulx  to  the  Guigonids;  acquisition  of  St  Maurice  (224-6).  Foundation  of  Pinerolo 
(226-7).  Adelaide  and  imperial  politics;  revolt  of  Asti  (227-9) '  ^^  Peter  Damian's 
letter  (230-1).  Marriages  of  Bertha,  Peter  I,  Adelaide  and  Immula  (231-3). 
Adelaide  and  Frattuaria  (233).  Cunibert  and  Chiusa;  breach  between  Gregory  VII 
and  Henry  IV  (233-6).  Henry  IV's  treaty  with  Adelaide  (237-9).  Canossa  (239-40). 
Cunibert  and  Chiusa  (240-1).  Death  of  Peter  I;  reign  of  Amadeus  II;  death  of 
Amadeus  II;  his  children;  Oddo  II  of  Savoy  (241-3).  Frederick  of  Turin  (243-4). 
Henry  IV's  second  Vjreach  with  the  Pope ;  Benzo  of  Alba  negotiates  with  Adelaide 
(244-6).  The  diploma  to  Cunibert  of  Turin  (246-7).  Adelaide,  Henry  IV  and 
Benedict  II  of  Chiusa  (247-9).  Deaths  of  the  Empress  Bertha  and  Adelaide  of 
Swabia;  second  revolt  of  Asti  (249-50).  Deaths  of  Marquess  Frederick  and  Adelaide 
(250-1). 

Section  VII.     The  Break-up  of  the  Mark  of  Turin  (251-60). 

General  decay  of  the  Italian  Marks  into  Marquessates;  decay  of  the  ptiblica 
potestas  in  the  Turinese  mark  (251-3).  Loss  of  patrimonial  demesnes  (253-4).  Rise 
of  the  citizen-class  (254-5).  War  of  succession  for  the  mark  of  Turin;  Burchard  of 
Montresor  (255-7).  Break-up  of  the  mark,  Aleramids,  cities,  etc.  (257-9).  FeudaHsm 
becomes  full-grown  in  Piedmont  (259-60). 


CHAPTER   III 

THE   ATTEMPT   TO    RECOVER   THE   MARK   OF   TURIN 
Section  I.     Humbert  II  (261-78). 

Feudalism;  divergences  in  its  development  in  the  West  (261-3).  Character  of 
feudal  development  in  Burgundy  (263-4).  Feudalism  in  Savoy  (264-6).  Humbert  II 
is  a  Burgundian ;  his  relations  with  the  Empire  (266-7).  I^is  secular  policy  in 
Burgundy;  acquisition  of  Tarentaise  (267-71).  His  ecclesiastical  policy  in  Burgundy 
(271-2).  Humbert  II  in  Italy;  he  claims  the  mark  of  Turin,  Car.  Reg.  ccx.xvii. 
(271-4).  Humbert's  entry  into  Italy;  negotiation  with  Asti;  alliance  with  Chiusa 
and  Pinerolo  and  Fruttuaria;  foundation  of  the  mint  of  Susa;  extent  of  Humbert  II's 
success  in  Italy  (274-6).     Humbert  II's  children  and  death  (276-8). 

Section  II.     Amadeus  Ill's  Early  Life  and  Wars  (278-93). 

Arrangement  adopted  for  Amadeus  Ill's  reign;  Amadeus  Ill's  minority  (278-9). 
The  Emperor  Henry  V  in  Italy  and  West-Alpine  policy  (279-81).  Amadeus  Ill's 
purely  Burgundian  policy;  his  first  crusade;  marriages  of  his  sisters;  Concordat  of 
Worms  and  its  influence  on  Savoy  (281-3).  Probable  war  of  Amadeus  III  with 
Aymon  of  the  Genevois ;  Amadeus  Ill's  first  marriage  (283-4).  Lothar  II  revives 
the  Rectorate  of  Burgundy;  Amadeus  III  invades  Italy;  he  obtains  Turin,  etc. 
(284-7).  Lothar  II  captures  Turin  and  subdues  Amadeus  III  (287-9).  Amadeus  III 
probably  recovers  Turin;  boundaries  of  Turin  and  Maurienne  dioceses  (289-91). 
Amadeus  III  and  France;  his  war  with  the  Dauphin;  his  daughter  Matilda  marries 
Affonso  I  of  Portugal  (291-3). 


Table  of  Contents  xiii 

Section  III.     Amadeus  Ill's  Government  and  Death  (293-315). 

Amadeus  Ill's  religious  foundations;  his  share  in  that  of  Abbondance  (293-4). 
He  founds  St  Sulpice-en-Bugey;  birth  and  marriage  of  his  daughter  AHce  (294-5). 
He  founds  Hautecombe,  Chezery  and  Arvieres  (296-7).  He  reforms  St  Maurice; 
his  relations  with  Tamie  and  the  Hospice  de  St  Bernard  (297-8).  Feudal  juris- 
dictions; grant  to  Maurienne;  St  Maurice  Agaune  v.  the  d'Allinges  (298-300). 
Amadeus  IH's  dispute  with  the  Bishop  of  Sion ;  he  surrenders  the  spolia  of  Tarentaise, 
Aosta  and  Maurienne  (300-2).  Amadeus  Hi's  curia\  the  niinisteriales  (302-3). 
The  Liberties  of  Susa  (303-6).  Amadeus  IH's  entourage  and  residences;  his  titles 
(306-8).  He  joins  the  Second  Crusade;  he  raises  money  from  S.  Giusto  and 
St  Maurice  (309-10).  His  crusade  and  death  (311-13).  His  children,  and  character; 
his  assumption  of  a  coat  of  arms.     Summary  (313-15). 


CHAPTER    IV 

COUNT   HUMBERT   HI 
Section  I.     Humbert  Ill's  Early  Rule  (1148-68)  (316-32). 

Characteristics  of  Humbert's  rule  (316-17).  Amadeus  of  Lausanne  becomes  Tutor ; 
Turin  becomes  independent ;  affairs  of  St  Maurice  ;  Humbert  Hi's  first  two  marriages 
(317-19).  Frederick  Barbarossa  and  Burgundy;  the  Rectorate  of  the  Zahringen ; 
Humbert  Hi's  attitude  (319-21).  Barbarossa  in  Italy;  state  of  North  Italy;  Barba- 
rossa in  Piedmont;  Dauphin  Guigues  V  (322-3).  Barbarossa  acquires  Tranche 
Comte ;  restriction  of  the  Rectorate;  new  turn  of  Burgundian  politics  (323-5). 
Siege  of  Milan ;  Diet  of  Roncaglia ;  Diplomas  to  S.  Solutore  and  the  Bishop  of 
Turin  (325-7).  The  Schism  ;  destruction  of  Milan  (327-8).  Barbarossa's  power  in 
Burgundy;  Savoy  is  Alexandrine;  Humbert  III  ransomed;  Humbert  HI  wars  with 
the  Dauphine  ;  marries  dementia  of  Zahringen  (328-9).  Decline  of  the  Schismatics 
in  Burgundy;  Humbert  Ill's  quarrel  with  St  Anthelm  of  Belley  {329-31).  The 
Lombard  League;    Barbarossa's  army  is  destroyed  by  plague  (331-2). 

Section  II.     Humbert  III  as  an  Imperial  Partizan  (332-46). 

Barbarossa's  straits;  he  gains  over  Humbert  III  and  escapes  over  the  Mont  Cenis 
(332-5).  Humbert  Ill's  terms ;  he  reacquires  the  county  of  Turin ;  he  is  at  war  with 
Asti  (335-7).  Humbert  Ill's  alliance  with  England ;  general  peace  among  the 
Burgundian  seigneurs;  the  terms  of  the  English  treaty  (337-41).  Barbarossa  re- 
invades  Italy;  he  burns  Susa;  his  diploma  to  St  Anthelm  of  Belley;  Humbert  III  is 
with  the  Emperor ;  Legnano;  Humbert  Ill's  wars  in  Piedmont  (341-4).  Barbarossa 
is  crowned  at  Aries;  Humbert  III  marries  Beatrice  of  Macon;  birth  of  his  son 
Thomas;  death  of  St  Anthelm;  Humbert's  treaty  with  the  Bishop  of  Sion  (344-6). 

Section  III.     Humbert  Ill's  Last  Years  and  Death  (346-52). 

The  Peace  of  Constance;  Barbarossa  becomes  hostile  to  Humbert  III;  Milo 
Bishop  of  Turin;  his  war  with  Humbert  III  (346-7).  Milo's  legal  proceedings 
against  Humbert  III  ;  decision  against  Humbert  III  (348-9).  New  Piedmontese 
settlement;  war  with  Humbert  III;  parallel  case  of  the  Genevois;  Barbarossa's 
diploma  to  the  Archbishop  of  Tarentaise;  Humbert  III  is  put  to  the  ban  of  the 
Empire;  Henry  VI  takes  Avigliana  (349-51).  Humbert  III  dies;  his  character  and 
children  (351-2). 


xiv  Table  of  Contents 

CHAPTER   V 

COUNT  THOMAS 
Section  I.     The  Burgundian  Phase  (353-79). 

Savoyard  history  becomes  fuller  and  more  continuous  with  Thomas;  periods  of 
his  reign  (353-5).  Regency  of  Boniface  of  Montferrat  and  reconciliation  with  the 
Empire  (355-7).  Thomas  of  age;  wars  in  progress  in  N.  Burgundy;  acquisition  of 
Cornillon  (357-9).  Charter  to  Aosta  (359-60).  Death  of  Henry  VI;  state  of 
Piedmont  (360-4).  The  Piedmontese  wars  (i  190-1200)  of  Turin  and  Asti  and  the 
Marquesses;  Thomas  concerned  (364-70).  Thomas'  first  war  with  Saluzzo ;  close 
of  the  war  of  Asti  and  the  Marquesses  (370-2).  Thomas'  war  with  the  Duke  of 
Zahringen,  etc.;  Combat  de  Chilian;  acquisition  of  Moudon;  Thomas  adheres  to 
King  Philip ;  renewed  war ;  Philip's  murder ;  final  peace  with  Zahringen  and  the 
Bishop  of  Lausanne;  results  of  Thomas'  N.  Burgundian  policy  (37'2-7).  Civil  War 
in  Val  d'Aosta  ;  Thomas'  intervention;  character  of  this  period  of  the  reign  (377-9). 

Appendix  I.      Thomas'  first  war  with  Saluzzo  (379-81). 

Appendix  II.     Thomas'  war  with  the  Duke  of  Zahringen  (381-2). 

Section  II.     Count  Thomas'  Italian  Conquests  (383-93). 

Introductory;  Otto  IV's  march  to  Rome;  Asti  deserts  the  small  communes 
(38.?~5)-  Otto  IV's  breach  with  the  Pope ;  Thomas  acquires  Vigone ;  his  second 
war  and  peace  with  Saluzzo  (385-7).  Lombard  affairs;  Saluzzo  breaks  the  treaty; 
Thomas  allies  with  the  Lombard  League;  war  with  Montferrat  and  Saluzzo;  new 
peace  with  Saluzzo;  Thomas  acquires  territory  south  of  the  Po  (387-90).  Death  of 
Otto  IV ;  Thomas'  Burgundian  schemes ;  Geneva ;  alliances  with  the  Dauphine  ; 
Provence  and  Kyburg  (390-3). 

Section  III.     Thomas'  later  Years  and  Decline  in  Power 

(393-414). 

Thomas'  Italian  ambitions ;  state  of  Lombardy ;  Thomas  acquires  Pinerolo, 
Carignano,  etc.  (393-5).  War  with  his  Piedmontese  vassals,  Turin  and  Saluzzo ; 
Peaces  of  1223  (395-8).  War  and  peace  with  Sion  and  Thoire  (398-9).  Power  of 
Asti ;  Saluzzo  submits  to  her ;  Thomas  is  again  at  war  with  the  Piedmontese  vassals, 
Turin  and  Pinerolo;  he  submits  to  Asti;  general  war  in  W.  Lombardy;  Thomas 
takes  service  under  Genoa  (399-403).  Frederick  IPs  breach  with  the  Lombard 
League ;  Thomas  joins  the  Emperor ;  is  made  Vicar  of  Lombardy ;  his  Ligurian 
scheme  and  failure ;  his  negotiation  with  Marseilles  (404-7).  William  of  Savoy 
becomes  Elect  of  Valence;  Thomas'  negotiations  to  the  Pope;  his  alliance  with 
Montferrat;  renewed  general  war  in  W.  Lombardy;  the  Dauphin  joins  Turin;  so  do 
the  Romagnano ;  foundation  and  revolt  of  Villafranca ;  destruction  of  Testona 
(407-11).  The  Lombard  League  subdues  Montferrat  and  refounds  Cuneo  and  Mon- 
calieri;  Thomas'  share  in  the  war;  Asti  and  the  others  make  peace  (412-13). 
Thomas  continues  the  war  with  Turin,  etc.;   his  death  (41 4). 

Section  IV.     Epilogue;  Thomas'  Family  (414-20). 

Amadeus  IV  makes  peace  with  the  Dauphin,  Turin,  etc. ;  results  of  Thomas' 
Italian  wars  (414-15).  Thomas'  marriage  (415-17).  His  sons  and  daughters  (417-18). 
General  results  of  his  reign ;  his  character  and  attitude  to  the  monasteries  (418-20). 


Table  of  Contents  xv 

CHAPTER  VI 

THE   SAVOYARD   STATE   UNDER   HUMBERT   HI   AND   THOMAS 
Section  I.     Territories  (421-8). 

Two  main  divisions  of  Humbert  and  Thomas'  lands,  shown  in  their  titles  (421-2). 
The  Counts  were  Princes  of  the  Empire  (422-3).  The  Counts  of  Savoy  exercise  the 
royal  prerogative  in  their  lands;  they  practise  primogeniture  (423-4).  The  Savoyard 
dominions  in  Burgundy;  the  sees  of  Sion,  Belley  and  Tarentaise  (424-7).  The 
Savoyard  dominions  in  Italy  (427).  New  elements  in  Burgundian  politics;  the 
policy  of  the  Counts  of  Savoy  (427-8). 

Section  II.     The  Savoyard  Government  (429-39). 

The  Count's  travelling  court;  the  Count's  jurisdiction  (429-31).  The  Count's 
financial  rights  (431-3).  Local  comital  officials,  mestrals  and  castellans,  missi 
(433-5)-  Chief  officials  of  the  household;  special  advisers  of  Humbert  HI;  the 
court  of  Count  Thomas  (435-7).  The  Count's  Cnx'ia.,  proceres  aiXidi  others;  tendency 
of  the  Curia  to  be  localized ;   probable  origin  of  the  Estates  (437-9). 

Section  III.     Vassals  and  Towns  (439-51). 

Classes  in  the  Savoyard  State;  the  nobles  (439-40).  The  Viscounts;  their 
powers ;  sub-enfeoffment ;  the  Viscounts  of  Aiguebelle,  Maurienne,  Novalaise,  Savoy, 
Tarentaise  and  Aosta  (440-4).  Baronial  rights  in  general ;  ecclesiastical  landowners 
(444-5).  C/ienies  a.nd  rus/ici  (4.46-7).  The  townsmen;  their  privileges  and  charters ; 
Aosta  and  Susa ;  classes  of  townsfolk  ;  town  government  (447-51). 

Section  IV.     Summary  (452-5). 

General  development;  personal  law  changes  to  local  law;  feudalism  becomes 
fiillgrown  (452-3).  Count's  pre-eminent  and  public,  not  merely  feudal,  position 
(453).  Unity  and  fortunate  geographical  position  of  Savoy  (453-4).  Princedom  of 
the  Empire  and  primogeniture;   ability  of  the  Counts  (454-5). 

Appendix  of  Documents  (456-79). 

Genealogy  of  the  Ardoinids  (212). 

Genealogy  of  the  Humbertines  (between  pp.  480  and  481). 

Index  (481). 

Map  I.   The  Savoyard  Lands  c.  1080  {in  pocket). 

Map  II.  The  Savoyard  Lands  c.  1180  {m  pocket). 


CHRONICLES 

Under  this  head  I  give  a  list  of  our  meagre  narrative  sources  for 
Savoyard  History.  Foreign  chronicles,  which  merely  give  incidental  notices 
of  Savoy,  are  omitted ;  as  well  as  such  Vitae  Sanctorum  as  contain  nothing 
secular. 

Chronica  Altacumbae  abbaiiae  {M.H.P.  Script,  il.  671  fif.). 

[A  Latin  Genealogy  of  the  Counts  of  Savoy,  with  short  notices  of 
them,  composed  under  Amadeus  VIII  c.  1400.  Until  c.  1250  it  is 
inaccurate,  and  deserves  little  credit,  unless  supported  by  other  evidence.] 

Chronica  Sabaudiae  Latina  {M.H.P.  Script.  ll.  599  ff.). 

[It  contains  an  abstract  of  the  French  Chroniques,  for  the  period 
under  review ;  but  also  adds  a  valuable  Genealogy  of  the  Dauphins 
from  another  source.] 

Chroniques  anciennes  de  Savoye  {M.H.P.  Script.  ll.  5  ff-)- 

[An  inflated  compilation  c.  1420.     It  uses  Chron.  Alt.  and  repeats 
the  latter's  errors ;   but   also  contains  old  traditions  however  grossly 
distorted.     Much  of  it  seems  sheer  invention.] 
Chronicon  Novaliciense  (ed.  Cipolla,  MoJiumetita  Novaliciensia  vettistiora, 
Fonti  per  la  storia  d'  Italia  31,  32). 

[Written  c.  1060  by  a  monk  of  Breme.     It  is  peculiarly  legendary  in 
character,  but  quite  a  work  of  good  faith.     Unhappily  much  is  lost,  and 
the  author  does  not  give  contemporary  history.] 
Fragmenta  Chronicae  Latinae  Sabaudiae  {Misc.  star.  ital.  xxil.  305  ff.). 

[It  appears  to  be  a  Latin  translation  of  a  slightly  older  text  of  the 
French  Chroniques.  It  contains  the  same  kind  of  legends  with  little 
variation ;  but  has  a  more  sober  tone.] 

Gaufridi  Abbatis    Altacumbae.,    Vita    S.    Petri    Tarentasiensis,   A  A.    SS. 
Mai  II.). 

[Contemporary.] 

Giofifredo  della  Chiesa,  Cronaca  di  Saluzzo.     {M.H.P.  Script.  III.  841  ff.) 

[Fifteenth-century  account,  which  for  our  period  is  based  on  charters, 
some  now  lost,  and  on  a  small  amount  of  genuine  tradition.  Un- 
fortunately Della  Chiesa  accepts  some  forged  documents,  and  the 
sophisticated  legends  of  the  Chroniques  de  Savojye.] 

Vita  S.  Anthehni  Bellicensis  {A A.  SS.  Jun.  v.). 

[Contemporary.] 
Willelmi  monachi  Clusensis,  Chronicon  monasterii  S.  Michaelis  de  Clusa 
996-1046.     {M.H.P.  Script  III.  249  ff) 

[Composed  c.  1060.  Well-informed  ;  but  "tendenzios."  Hence  not 
altogether  trustworthy,  even  in  non-miraculous  parts.  William  is 
anxious  to  prove  the  abbey's  complete  independence  of  the  Bishop  of 
Turin.] 
Willelmi  Monachi  Clusensis,  Vita  S.  Bene  die  ti  II  Abbatis  Clusensis. 
{M.H.P.  Script.  III.  273  fif.) 

[Contemporary.  Composed  c.  1095.  "  Tendenzios  "  against  Bishop 
Cunibert  of  Turin ;  but  does  not  seem  to  invent  facts.] 


ABBREVIATED   TITLES 

[The  abbreviated  titles  used  in  the  notes  are  not  given  here  unless  they 
are  necessary  for  easy  identification.] 

A  A.  SS.=Acta  Sanctorum. 

Arch.  St.  ital.=Archivio  storico  italiano.     Florence. 

Baudi  di  Vesme,  B.,  //  re  Arduino  e  la  riscossa  italica  contro  Ottone  III 
e  Arrigo  /,  B.S.S.S.  vii. 

Bertano,  L.,  Storia  di  Cuneo.     Medioevo.     Cuneo,  1898. 

Besson,  Memoires  pour  Phistoire  ecclesiastique  des  dioches  de  Geneve, 
Tarentaise,  Aoste  et  Maurienne  et  du  Decanat  de  Savoie,  ed.   1871. 

B.S.S.S.  =  Biblioteca  della  Societct  storica  subalphia.,  diretta  dal  Prof.  F. 
Gabotto.  [The  abbreviated  titles  of  the  separate  volumes  are  not  given 
here  at  length,  since  they  are  easily  identifiable  by  their  numbering  in 
the  series.] 

Billiet,  A.,  et  Albrieux,  Chartes  du  Diocese  de  Maurientie,  Documents  de 
I'Academie  de  Savoie,  Vol.  ll.     Chambery. 

Bollettino  storico-bibliografico  subalpino,  ed.  Prof.  F.  Gabotto,  Pinerolo. 

BoUea,  L.  C,  Le prime  relazioni fra  la  Casa  di  Savoia  e  Ginevra  (926-121 1). 
Turin,  1901. 

Bulletiino  dell'  Istituto  storico  italiano.     Rome. 

Bouquet,  Recueil  des  Historiens  des  Gaules  et  de  la  France  (or  Reruvt 
Gallicarum  et  Francicarum  Scriptores). 

Bresslau,  H.,  Jahrbiicher  des  deutschen  Reichs  unter  Konrad  II.  Leipzig, 
1879-95.     [See  also  under  Hirsch,  S.] 

Car.  7?t;^.  =  Carutti,  D.,  Regesta  Comitum  Sabaudiac.ad  an.  MCCLlii,  in 
the  Biblioteca  storica  italiana.     Turin,  1889. 

Car.  ^?(r/.  =  Carutti,  D.,  Supplonento  ai  Regesta  Comitum  Sabaudiae  in 
Misc.  stor.  ital.  (q.v.).     Series  ill.     Tomo  IX. 

Carutti,  D.,  //  co7ite  Umberto  I  {Biancamano)  e  il  re  Arduino,  2nd  ed. 
Rome,  1888. 

Carrard,  H.,  Le  combat  de  Chilian.     M.D.R.  New  Series.     I.  (1887). 

Chevalier,  C.  U.  J.,  Collection  de  Cartulaires  dauphinois.  [This  includes 
the  Cartulaire  de  St  Andrc-le-bas  de  Vienne,  the  Actes  capitulaires  de 
St  Maurice  de  Vienne,  the  Diplomatique  de  Pierre  de  Rivaz,  etc.  There 
are  ten  volumes  or  fasciculi  in  all,  some  of  which  were  never  completed.] 


xviii  Abbreviated  Titles 

Chevalier,  C.  U.  J.,  Docu7iients  historiques  inedits  sur  le  Dauphine.  [A 
collection  similar  in  its  method  to  the  preceding.  There  are  nine 
volumes  or  fasciculi.] 

Cibrario,  L.,  Storia  della  monarchia  di  Savoia.     Turin,  1840-4. 

Cibrario,  L.,  Delle  finanze  della  jnonarchia  di  Savoia  in  Memorie  della  r. 
Accademia  di  Scienze  di  Torino,  xxxvi.  (1833). 

Cibrario,  L.,  Delle  storie  di  Chieri  libri  IV.     Turin,  1827. 

Cibrario,  L.,  Storia  di  Torino.     Turin,  1846. 

Cibrario  e  Promis,  Z'f?^.  =  Cibrario,  L.,  and  Promis,  D.,  Docutnenti,  Sigilli 
e  Monete  appartenenti  alia  storia  della  ftionarchia  di  Savoia.  Turin, 
1833.  [It  consists  unfortunately  of  two  sections,  the  Rapporto,  w^ith  its 
pages  numbered  thus  :  (i),  and  the  Document!  etc.,  with  its  pages 
numbered  thus :  i.] 

Cipolla,  C,  Le  pill  antiche  carte  diplomatiche  del  Motiastero  di  S.  Giusto  di 
Susa,  Bull,  istit.  stor.  ital,  No.  18. 

Cipolla,  C,  Briciole  di  storia  novaliciensia,  Bull,  istit.  stor.  ital.  No.  22. 

Cx^oWa..!  C,  Monumenta  Novaliciensia  vetustiora,  Fonti  per  la  storia  d'ltalia, 
Nos.  31-32,  published  by  the  Istituto  storico  italiano. 

Desimoni,  C,  Sulle  tnarche  d'ltalia  e  loro  diramazione  in  marchesati.     Atti 

della  Soc.  Ligure  di  Storia  Patria.     xxviii. 
Du  Bouchet,  J.,  Preuves  de  Vhistoire  de  la  tnaison  de  Coligny.     Paris,  1662. 
Fonti  per  la  Storia  d^  Italia.,  published  by  the  Istituto  storico  italiano. 

Foras,  Ct  E.  A.  de,  and  Ct  Mar^schal  de  Luciane,  Armorial  et  Nobiliaire  de 
Pancieti  Duche' de  Savoie.     Vols.  I. -IV.     Grenoble,  1863-1902. 

Fournier,  P.,  Le  Royaume  d'' Aries  et  de  Vienne.     Paris,  1891. 
Gabotto,  F.,  UAbazia  ed  il  Coimine  di  Pinerolo  e  la  riscossa  sabauda  in 
Pietnonte.     B.S.S.S.  I.  (1899). 

Gerbaix-Sonnaz,  C.  A.  de,  Studi  storici  sul  contado  di  Savoia  e  marchesato 
in  Italia.     Three  vols.     Turin  and  Rome,  1 883-1902. 

Gingins-La-Sarra,  F.  de,  Mhnoire  sur  Vorigine  de  la  maison  de  Savoie. 
M.D.R.  XX. 

Guichenon,  S.,  Histoire  g^nealogique  de  la  royale  maison  de  Savoye.  Lyons, 
1660.     [Vol.  II.  contains  the  Preuves.^ 

Guichenon,  S.,  Histoire  de  la  Bresse  et  du  Bugey.     Lyons,  1650. 

Hellmann,  S.,  Die  Grafen  vo7i  Savoyen  und  das  Reich  bis  zujn  Ende  des 
staufischen  Periode.     Innsbruck,  1900. 

Hirsch,  S.,  and  Bresslau,  H.,  Jahrbiicher  des  deutschen  Reichs  unter 
Heinrich  II.     Leipzig,  1862-74. 

Jacob,  L.,  Le  Royaume  de  Bourgogne  sous  les  Empdreurs  Franconiens. 
Paris,  1906. 

Jahrbuch  fiir  schweizerische  Geschichte,  published  by  the  AUgemeine 
geschichtsforschende  Gesellschaft  fiir  Schweiz  from  1876. 


Abbreviated  Titles  xix 

Kallmann,  R.,  Die  Beziehungen  des  Kotiigreichs  Biirgund  zu  Kaiser  iind 
Reich  von  Heinrich  III  bis  zur  Zeit  Friedrichs  I.  Jahrbuch  fiir 
schweizerische  Geschichte  xiv.  (1889). 

Labruzzi,  F.,  La  mo7iarchia  di  Savoia  dalle  origini  alV  anno  1103.  Rome, 
19CX5. 

M.D.G.=^Memoires    et    Documents  publics   par    la    Societe    d'histoire    et 

d\xrcheologie  de  Geneve. 
M.D.R.  =  Mdmoires  et   Documents  publics  par  la  Societi  d'histoire  de   la 

Suisse  romande. 
M.G.H.  =  Monumenta  Gerttianiae  Historica. 
M.H.P.  =  Mo?iumenta  Historiae  Patriae. 

Manteyer,  Origines=-Yi'\\X.o,  G.  de,  Les  Origines  de  la  Maison  de  Savoie  en 
Bourgogne  910-1060.  (Melanges  d'archeologie  et  d'histoire  de  I'ecole 
frangaise  de  Rome,  xix.  (1899).) 

Manteyer,  Notes  additionnelles ^D'lito^  G.  de,  Les  Origines  de  la  maison  de 
Savoie  en  Bourgogne  ()io-io6o.  Notes  additionnelles.  {LeMoyenAge, 
Ser.  II.  Vol.  V.) 

Manteyer,  Paix='D'\X.to,  G.  de,  Les  Origines  de  la  maison  de  Savoie  en 
Bourgogne  910-1060.  La  Paix  en  Viennois  {A7ise  {^17  jui?i\  102^)  et  les 
additions  a  la  Bible  de  Viennc  {Ms.  Berne  A.  g).  Bulletin  de  la  Societd 
statistique  de  I'ls^re,  XXXlil.     Grenoble,  1904. 

Mayer,  E.,  Deutsche  und  Franzosische  Verfassungsgeschichte  vom  9  bis  zum 
\A,  Jahrhundert.     Leipzig,  1899. 

Mayer,  E.,  Italienische  Verfassungsgeschichte  von  der  Gothenzeit  bis  zum 
Zunftherrschaft.     Leipzig,  1909. 

Menabrea,  L.,  Les  origines  feodales  dans  les  Alpes  occidentales.    Turin,  1865. 

Migne,  Patrologiae  Cursus  Completus  (Latinae). 

Misc.  St.  ital.  =  Miscellanea  di  storia  italiana.     Turin. 

Muratori,  L.,  Rerum  Italicarum  Scriptores.     Ed.  I.  Milan. 

Oehlmann,  E.,  Die  Alpenpdsse  im  Mittelalter,  Jahrbuch  fiir  schweizerische 
Geschichte,  Vols.  iii.  and  iv.  1878,  1879. 

Philipon,  E.,  Origines  du  diocise  et  du  comtd  de  Belley.     Paris,  1900. 

Pivano,  S.,  Stato  e  chiesa  in  Italia  da  Berengario  ad  Arduino  888-1015, 

Turin,  1908. 
Poupardin,  R.,  Le  Royaume  de  Bourgogne  (888-1038).     Paris,  1907. 
Poupardin,  R.,  Le  Royaume  de  Provence  sous  les  Carolingiens.     Paris,  1901. 
Renaux,  C.,  Le  Marquis  Odon  /•"■  de  Savoie,  fits  d'Htanbert  /«"■.     Mdmoires 

de  I'Acad^mie  de  Savoie.     Ser.  iv.  T.  Xl.  (1909). 
RR.   II.   SS.  =  Rerutn  Italicarum  Scriptores,  new  edition  of  Muratori    in 

course  of  publication.     Cittk  di  Castello. 

Rondolino,  F.,  Dei  visconti  di  Torino.  Boll.  stor.  bibl.  subalp.  vi.  vii. 
and  IX. 


XX  Abbreviated  Titles 

Savio,  F.,  Gli  antichi  vescovi  (V Italia.     II  Pienionte.     Turin,  1899. 

Savio,  F.,  Bonifazio  del  Vasto-     In  Atti  della  r.  Accademia  delle  Scienze  di 

Torino.     XXII. 
Savio,  F.,  I primi  cotiti  di  Savoia.     Misc.  stor.  ital.  xxvi.  (Ser.  ll.  T.  xi.). 
Schiaparelli,  L.,  //  conte  Umberio  Bianca7iiano  fu  contestabile  di  Borgogna  ? 

Arch.  St.  ital.     Ser.  v.  Tomo  xxxvi.  (1905). 
Schiaparelli,  L.,  Charta  Augustana.     A?-ch.  st.  ital.     Ser.  v.  Tomo  xxxix. 

(1907). 

Sella,  Q.,  Codex  Astensis  qui  de  Malabayla  comniuniter  mcncupatur.  In 
Atti  della  r.  Accademia  dei  Lincei,  Ser.  11.  Vols.  ll.,  v.,  vi.  and  Vll. 
(1880-7).     Scienze  morali,  storiche  ecc. 

Terraneo,  G.  B.,  La  Pri7icipessa  Adelaide. ..illustrata.     Cf.  below,  p.  129,  n.  2. 

Terraneo,  G.  B.,  Dei  primi  conti  di  Savoia  e  della  loro  signoria  sulla  valle 
d'Aosta.     Ed.  Bollati.     Misc.  stor.  ital.  XVI.  (1877). 

Tinier,  J.  B.  de,  Historique  de  la  Vallee  d^Aoste.    Aosta,  18S3  etc. 

Wurstemberger,  L.,  Graf  Peter  der  Ziveite  von  Savoyen,  Markgraf  in 
Italien.,  sein  Haus  und  seine  Ldiider.     Bern,  1856. 


CHAPTER    I 

HUMBERT    I   WHITEHANDS 

Section  I.    Burgundy,  888-1000. 

The  year  888  saw  the  final  break-up  of  the  Carolingian  Empire 
into  five  fragmentary  kingdoms.  Three  of  these  owed  their  origin  in 
some  measure  to  a  racial  feeling  in  embryo.  The  inhabitants  of  France, 
Germany  and  Italy  naturally  fell  into  separate  states.  But  geographical 
convenience,  particularism,  the  necessities  of  government,  and  family 
interests  played  a  large  part  in  the  division  ;  and  are  very  clearly  to  be 
seen  in  the  formation  of  the  two  remaining  kingdoms,  Jurane  Burgundy 
and  Provence.  The  former  of  these  was  really  a  Duchy  of  the  Frankish 
realm  which  under  its  ambitious  Duke  seized  an  easily  defensible  in- 
dependence. Rudolf  I  had  been  Duke  of  the  country  between  the  Jura 
and  the  Alps,  and  this  land  (the  present  Suisse  romande)  remained  the 
source  of  his  power.  But  in  addition  he  ruled  the  ancient  Burgundian 
counties  between  the  Jura  and  the  Saone,  and  the  German-speaking 
Burgundian  district  to  the  west  of  the  Aar  and  southwards  from  Basel. 
His  southern  frontier  seems  to  have  coincided  with  those  of  the  pagus 
Genevensis  and  the  Valley  of  Aosta.  Thus  the  whole  of  the  Lake  of 
Geneva  and  both  the  approaches  of  the  Great  St  Bernard  Pass  were 
under  his  sway.  The  kingdom  taken  as  a  whole  was  peculiarly  fortified 
by  Nature,  and  its  parts  had  an  ancient  tradition  of  association.  Nor 
was  it  lacking  in  a  degree  of  linguistic  unity.  The  greater  part  of  its 
inhabitants  spoke  dialects  of  the  same  Romance  language,  the  Franco- 
provengal  or  Mesorhodanic,  which  is  still  living  in  the  districts  originally 
settled  in  by  the  Burgundii  when  they  crossed  the  Rhine^  Rudolf  I's 
attempt  to  extend  his  new  authority  over  all  Lotharingia,  which  would 
have  introduced  heterogeneous  elements,  failed,  and  did  not  affect  the 
character  of  the  new  realm. 

^  See  Grober,  Grundriss  der  romanischen  rhilologic,  I.  550,  557-8,  755-6,  and 
Ascoli,  Archivio  glottologico  italiano.  III.  60  ff.  The  F'ranco-provcn9al  languages 
extended  from  the  Rhone  and  Saone  to  the  frontier  of  German  speech  and  included 
Grenoble,  Lyons,  Aosta,  Geneva,  Lausanne,  and  Neuchatel. 

P.  O.  I 


2  Burgundy  888-1000 

Somewhere  about  the  year  933,  Rudolf  I's  son,  Rudolf  II,  more 
than  doubled  the  extent  of  his  kingdom  by  the  acquisition  of  the 
neighbouring  realm  of  Provence.  Like  Jurane  Burgundy,  this  state, 
which  stretched,  roughly  speaking,  between  the  Rhone  and  the  Alps 
from  Lyons  to  the  sea,  represented  an  older  administrative  division  of 
Francia  which  possessed  defensible  frontiers.  If  not  forming  a  linguistic 
unity,  its  inhabitants  were  not  far  removed  in  language  from  one  another. 
Its  southern  districts  spoke  some  form  of  the  Languedoc  :  its  northerly 
the  allied  Franco-proven^al. 

Lastly,  it  seems  likely  that  Rudolf  II  also  obtained  the  German 
territory  between  the  Aar  and  the  Reuss,  apparently  by  cession  from 
the  German  King  ;  and  so  completed  the  new  kingdom.  Its  boundaries 
were  never  extended  subsequently.  For  its  name  we  may  choose  that 
of  Burgundy  among  the  several  appellations  which  are  provided  us  by 
the  despair  of  contemporaries ;  for  at  least  it  had  a  rough  corre- 
spondence with  the  Kingdom  of  Burgundy  of  Gundobad,  and  the 
latter's  edict,  the  loi  Gombette,  was  the  predominant  racial  Germanic  law 
among  those  professed  by  its  inhabitants,  although  Roman  law  seems 
to  have  claimed  the  greater  part  of  the  population. 

As  the  kingdom  thus  pieced  together  was  heterogeneous  in  language, 
so  it  was  in  geographical  conformation.  A  certain  kind  of  unity  can 
indeed  be  claimed  for  it,  in  that  the  realm  was  nearly  identical  with  the 
watershed  of  the  Rhone.  This  fact  at  any  rate  secured  some  means  of 
communication  between  the  various  parts,  for  the  tributaries  of  the 
Rhone  system,  in  working  their  way  to  the  main  river,  link  up  the 
different  regions.  The  roads  can  follow  the  river-courses.  But  after 
admitting  this  advantage,  little  else  that  favours  unity  is  left.  The 
slowly  rising  plateau  which  was  to  be  called  in  the  future  Franche 
Comte  was  separated  by  the  Jura  range  from  the  mountainous  intra- 
Jurane  home  of  the  dynasty.  The  Lower  Rhone  valley  had  a  character 
of  its  own  in  climate  and  configuration.  And  all  to  the  west  lay  one 
sinuous,  narrowing  Alpine  valley  after  another,  divided  each  from  each 
by  the  lateral  mountain-ranges  stretching  from  the  main  water-parting 
and  often  as  difficult  to  cross.  Two  groups  of  these,  that  of  the  Vallais 
and  Aosta,  and  that  of  Maurienne  and  Savoy,  will  require  our  special 
attention  in  the  course  of  this  inquiry.  They  form  groups  not  so  much 
because  of  an  obvious  geographical  linking,  as  because  they  were  each 
on  a  great  high-road  over  the  Alps,  and  therefore  tended  to  have  inter- 
communication and  come  under  the  same  control.  The  human  factor 
was  predominant  in  their  formation. 

Made  up  of  diverse  fractions,  small  in  extent,  mountainous  and 
therefore  thinly  populated,  it  was  not  likely  that  the  Kingdom  of 
Burgundy  could  be  powerful.     It  had  certain  advantages  of  position,  it 


Causes  of  the  kingdom's  weakness  3 

is  true.  It  commanded  the  communications  between  France  and  Italy 
as  well  as  the  best  routes  from  the  north-west  to  the  Mediterranean. 
Between  the  Rhineland  and  Italy  a  large  body  of  traders  and  pilgrims 
proceeded  over  the  Great  St  Bernard,  while  the  commonly  used  route 
from  and  to  the  north-west  led  by  Lyons,  Chambery  and  Maurienne 
over  the  Mont  Cenis.  Lastly,  the  traveller  who  desired  to  journey  by 
sea  struck  south  from  Lyons  down  the  Rhone  to  Marseilles.  Thus 
wealth  from  traffic  and  consequence  from  political  and  military  reasons 
could  not  be  denied  to  Burgundy.  But  on  the  whole  they  rather  supplied 
incentives  for  its  conquest  by  its  neighbours  than  sources  of  native 
power.  Perhaps,  also,  if  it  is  not  too  fanciful,  we  may  add  that  the 
new  kingdom  did  not  stand  for  anything  peculiar  or  characteristic  in 
European  civilization.  The  Mesorhodanic  dialects  never  formed  a 
self-conscious  literature  of  their  own ;  they  remained  dialects.  Even 
the  later  county  of  Provence  did  not  do  more  than  form  a  subdivision 
of  the  Provencal  culture  ;  and  the  existence  of  the  Kingdom  of  Burgundy 
only  served  to  keep  the  Provencal  culture-lands  disunited  politically. 

But  there  were  also  special  causes  for  the  weakness  of  Burgundy  as 
a  state.  These  were  :  (i)  the  general  decay  of  the  power  of  the  State 
since  Charlemagne,  (2)  the  character  of  the  annexation  of  Provence, 
(3)  the  Saracen  invasions,  (4)  the  incapacity  of  the  last  native  king, 
Rudolf  III  (993-1032).  They  may  be  briefly  described  in  the  above 
order. 

Perhaps,  if  we  try  to  reduce  to  the  simplest  terms  the  process  of 
decay  which  the  State  and  the  central  power  underwent  after  Charle- 
magne, we  may  say  it  was  consequent  on  the  decay  of  the  barbaric 
social  ties  of  the  German  races  which  settled  within  the  Empire  of  the 
West.  They  entered  the  dying  Empire  as  no  iconoclasts.  On  the 
contrary  they  eagerly  adopted  the  Roman  administrative  system  as  far 
as  they  understood  it.  A  large  and  sprawling  imitation  was  the  result, 
in  which  the  proportion  of  Roman-descended  elements  is  remarkable. 
But  naturally  the  elaborate  ideas  of  the  state  and  of  society  on  which 
they  had  once  been  based  could  not  survive  the  process  of  translation 
and  degeneration,  save  in  an  almost  legendary  form.  The  real  bond  of 
the  ruling  society  was  the  barbaric  kindred,  the  solidarity  of  the  kinship, 
the  allegiance  to  the  racial  King.  It  was  this  bond  that  decayed  with 
the  growth  of  a  new,  settled  condition  of  affairs.  Obviously,  too,  the 
preponderance  of  the  Roman  population  would  not  favour  its  con- 
tinuance west  of  the  Rhine.  Under  the  circumstances  new  local  ties 
born  of  actual  material  conditions  were  sure  to  be  evolved,  and  to 
gain  strength  rapidly  when  after  Charlemagne's  death  the  realm  was 
unwieldy,  the  sovran  incapable,  the  law  of  succession  pernicious,  and 
the  centralized  military  system  unequal  to  new  emergencies.     I  need 

1—2 


4  Burgundy  888-1000 

only  refer  to  the  process ;  how  the  Kings'  control  over  their  realms 
became  in  great  part  restricted  to  their  influence  over  their  own  personal 
sworn  followers,  their  fideles ;  how  the  latter  included  their  very  greatest 
subjects,  but  few  beside ;  how  the  grant  of  royal  lands  for  the  support 
oi\h^  fideles  made  them  the  rulers  of  their  districts,  in  influence  as  well 
as  in  office ;  how  that  influence  was  secured  when  these  "  benefices,"  lands 
as  well  as  offices,  became  hereditary ;  how  the  independent  landholders 
became  in  increasing  numbers  vassals  of  the  local  great  man  and 
"alods"  became  rare  outside  a  privileged  circle;  how  the  fighting  force 
of  the  kingdom  thus  came  more  and  more  to  be  at  the  disposal,  not  of 
the  King,  but  of  his  fideles ;  how  church-dignitaries  practically  held  the 
same  position  as  lay-landholders  ;  how  it  became  more  and  more  hard  to 
distinguish  the  free  peasant  from  the  serf;  how  Northman,  Hungarian 
and  Saracen  slaughtered,  sacked  and  disintegrated ;  and  how  the  whole 
West  sank  back  into  the  beast,  still  using  the  ancient  names  and  forms. 
By  the  year  900  the  anarchy  seems  almost  complete,  and  is  little 
exaggerated  in  the  chivalrous  romances  of  a  century  or  two  later.  The 
mail-clad  knight  in  his  stronghouse  or  castle  was  a  member  of  some 
feudal  complex,  with  the  mutual  rights  derived  from  homage  and 
vassalage.  Under  its  protection  he  carried  on  his  private  wars  and 
tyrannized  where  he  could  ;  and  the  wretched  population,  in  their  forest- 
circled  villages,  were  too  cowed  by  the  long  agony  they  had  passed 
through,  to  grudge  any  rights,  sometimes  even  the  most  iniquitous,  to 
their  fierce  protectors. 

Not  that  the  King  was  powerless.  In  conservative  Germany  he 
retained  great  strength.  Even  in  France  he  never  forgot  his  claims  as 
sovran  of  the  realm ^  In  some  ways  he  could  put  them  into  practice 
and  at  any  rate  could  rule  his  own  domains,  which  became  respectable 
in  extent  when  Hugh  Capet  ascended  the  throne^.  It  was  the  same 
in  Burgundy,  even  in  the  fact  that  the  King  enjoyed  very  unequal 
powers  in  the  north  and  the  south  of  his  dominions.  In  Jurane 
Burgundy  he  was  of  native  growth  and  the  possessor  of  large  estates. 
There  he  mostly  lived ;  there  he  could  claim  a  considerable  amount  of 
obedience  as  King.  His  dynasty  was  rooted  there.  But  Provence  had 
been  obtained  by  Rudolf  II  in  a  quite  peculiar  fashion.  During 
the  long  blindness  of  the  Bosonid  monarch,  the  Emperor  Lewis  III, 
the  greatest  noble  of  the  country,  Count  Hugh,  was  the  real  ruler.  He 
and  his  relatives  added  county  to  county  until  all  the  south  was  in 
their  hands.  But  Hugh's  ambitions  led  him  across  the  Alps  to  acquire 
the  crown  of  Italy.     Eventually  he  was  successful ;  but  Rudolf  II  was 

^  Luchaire,  Hist,  des  Instit.  mon.  de  la  France,  2nd  ed..  Vol.  i.  pp.  40  ff.,  53  and 
119. 

2  op.  cit.  Vol.  I.  pp.  52  ff.,  88  ff. 


The  Saracens  5 

a  dangerous  competitor,  and  in  fact  had  been  his  predecessor  in  the 
fickle  allegiance  of  the  Italian  Counts.  There  resulted  about  933  a 
bargain  between  the  two  kings.  Lewis  the  Blind  had  died  in  928,  and 
his  son  Charles-Constantine  had  only  contrived  to  keep  the  countship 
of  Vienne,  and  that  under  the  suzerainty  of  the  King  of  France.  No 
doubt  the  dethronement  of  the  Bosonids  was  due  to  Hugh  of  Italy, 
who  still  retained  his  countships  and  vassals  without  a  suzerain.  Now, 
however,  Hugh  ceded  to  Rudolf  of  Jurane  Burgundy  his  suzerain  rights 
over  Provence  in  return  for  security  as  to  Italy.  But  he  kept  for 
himself  and  his  kinsmen  their  domains  and  counties.  Thus,  even  when 
Charles-Constantine  finally  submitted  to  Rudolf  II's  son,  Conrad  the 
Peaceful,  about  943,  the  rule  of  the  Burgundian  King  in  the  south  had 
little  significance,  especially  towards  the  Mediterranean.  The  royal 
demesnes  there  were  few ;  the  great  Counts  were  exceptionally  powerful 
and  accustomed  to  independence;  and  the  chief  event  of  the  tenth 
century  in  Provence,  the  expulsion  of  the  Saracens,  was  accomplished 
not  by  the  King,  but  by  the  local  barons. 

Part  of  the  rise  of  the  later  dynasties  between  the  Rhone  and  the 
Alps  may  be  attributed  to  the  Saracens'  devastations  and  the  wars  for 
their  expulsion.  While  the  Hungarians,  who  swept  over  the  land  from 
time  to  time  during  the  first  half  of  the  tenth  century,  were  after  all 
only  a  transitory  nightmare,  the  Saracens'  occupation  was  permanent. 
At  the  close  of  the  ninth  century  they  had  seized  on  Freinet,  apparently 
a  fortified  stretch  of  hills  and  forest  round  the  Golfe  de  St  Tropez. 
With  Freinet  as  base  they  ravaged  both  sides  of  the  Alpine  chain  for 
eighty  years.  One  may  doubt  whether  many  peoples  have  undergone 
so  terrible  an  experience.  Whole  valleys,  like  that  of  Susa,  were  made 
deserts.  The  Saracens  spread  unchallenged  over  the  country-side,  sacked 
even  some  walled  cities,  and  made,  it  seems,  something  like  permanent 
forts  in  a  few  districts.  The  passes  were  almost  held  by  them.  They 
destroyed  the  great  roadside  abbeys  of  St  Maurice  and  Novalesa. 
They  once  even  reached  St  Gall.  It  seemed  for  long  impossible 
to  concert  sufficient  common  action  to  expel  them.  King  Hugh  of 
Italy  could  have  done  so  with  Byzantine  help  in  942,  but  his  private 
interests  led  him  to  prefer  an  alliance  with  them  instead.  Otto  the 
Great  intended  to  take  up  the  task,  but  other  affairs  drew  him  off. 
Finally,  St  Maiolus  of  Cluny  was  held  to  ransom  by  the  infidels  in  972  ; 
and  it  seems  likely  that  on  his  release  he  used  his  vast  influence  to 
make  the  local  barons  and  bishops  unite  in  a  campaign  against  the 
marauders.  The  brother-Counts  of  Provence,  Ardoin  III  of  Turin  and 
others  at  last  made  war  in  earnest,  and  it  was  not  long  before  they  had 
captured  Freinet  and  extirpated  the  pest^ 

^  Cf.  below,  pp.  145-7. 


6  Burgundy  888-1000 

The  profits  of  the  war  naturally  went  to  the  actual  victors,  not  to 
Conrad  the  Peaceful ;  and  it  cannot  surprise  us  that  the  Counts  of  the 
border-districts,  who  had  waged  it,  should  be  the  founders  of  the  chief 
medieval  states  of  South  Burgundy.  The  Counts  of  Provence,  the 
Dauphins  of  Grenoble  and  the  Counts  of  Savoy,  all  date  from  the  war. 
It  is  very  possible,  too,  that  their  power  was  increased  by  the  amount 
of  ravaged  land  that  was  appropriated  or  even  resettled  by  them.  All 
landholders  would  be  their  vassals.  Probably  they  had  already  usurped 
the  right  of  appointment  to  bishoprics. 

Meanwhile  Conrad  the  Peaceful  was  reigning,  and  reigning  with 
some  success,  in  the  north.  When  Rudolf  II  died  in  937,  the  restless 
Hugh  of  Italy  had  made  an  attempt  to  seize  on  the  kingdom.  He 
married  the  young  heir,  Conrad's,  mother  himself,  and  gave  his  new 
step-daughter  Adelaide  of  Burgundy  as  wife  to  his  co-regent  son, 
Lothar  II  of  Italy.  But  he  had  reckoned  without  his  host.  Otto  the 
Great  of  Germany  was  not  in  the  least  minded  to  suffer  the  extension 
of  Hugh's  power.  By  some  means  or  other  he  took  possession  of 
young  Conrad,  sent  King  Hugh  hurrying  back  to  Italy,  and  established 
a  more  or  less  effective  suzerainty  over  the  north  of  the  country.  Otto 
was  not  regardless  of  his  vassal's  welfare.  In  942  he  restored  him  to 
his  kingdom,  and  probably  had  some  share  in  securing  the  loyal  sub- 
mission of  the  whole  extent  of  it.  In  943  Conrad  could  hold  his  court 
in  the  Viennois. 

The  rest  of  his  reign,  little  known  at  best,  may  be  passed  over  here. 
He  became  the  brother-in-law  of  both  the  other  rulers  of  the  West ;  for 
his  sister  Adelaide  of  Italy  married  Otto  the  Great  in  951,  and  he 
himself  about  965  married  as  his  second  wife  Matilda,  sister  of  Lothaire 
of  France.  On  his  death  on  the  19th  October  993,  he  left  as  his  heir 
his  only  surviving  son  by  Matilda,  Rudolf  III. 

The  last  King  of  independent  Burgundy  has  received  a  bad  name 
from  the  chroniclers  as  "  the  sluggard,"  and,  making  allowance  for  the 
depletion  of  the  royal  demesne  and  the  consequent  smallness  of  his 
means,  the  results  of  his  reign  too  well  accord  with  the  character  given 
him  for  us  to  disbelieve  that  in  this  case  it  was  the  King  himself 
who  gave  the  coup  de  grace  to  the  royal  power.  Yet  he  began  his  reign 
with  an  act  of  vigour.  He  attempted  to  recover  for  the  crown  either 
some  of  the  benefices  which  were  still  nominally  non-hereditary  or  some 
lands  and  rights  long  before  usurped.  The  nobles  concerned  looked 
on  his  action  as  a  robbery  of  their  inheritance,  and  revolted.  In  the 
war  that  followed  Rudolf  was  easily  defeated,  and  presumably  made  his 
submission  and  his  peace  ^ 

^  See  for  the  two  kingdoms  Poupardin,  Bourgogne  and  Provence.     For  the  war 
with   the  barons  see   Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  pp.    1 13-16.     The  authority  is  Ann. 


The   Burofundian  Counts 


fe 


It  may  have  been  partly  a  consequence  of  Rudolf's  defeat  that  the 
Counts  in  the  Kingdom  of  Burgundy  acquired  the  great  legal  powers, 
which  we  find  in  their  possession  a  few  years  later.  They  had  probably 
long  usurped  them,  of  course,  but  legal  confirmation  may  have  been 
attained  now.  In  his  official  rights  and  in  his  standing,  now  at  any  rate, 
the  Burgundian  Count  was  the  equal  of  a  German  Duke'.  Several  pre- 
rogatives and  sources  of  profit  seem  to  be  implied  in  this  position.  He 
received  the  entire  judicial  profits  of  his  county,  and  not  merely  the 
comital  third.  He  called  out  the  entire  armed  force  of  his  county. 
He  could  hold  "at  mercy"  offenders  against  his  commands  and  dignity, 
that  is,  he  could  create  offences  or  make  them  entail  a  heavier  punish- 
ment. He  could  exercise  justice  over  the  royal  dependents  in  his 
county.  Lastly,  he  possessed  the  right  of  making  inquisitions,  that 
is,  of  compelling  his  subjects  to  give  evidence  on  oath  on  any  matter 
at  his  pleasure.  The  three  last  powers  were  of  especial  importance,  as 
they  limited  the  intervention  of  the  King,  and  decreased  his  control 
over  his  immediate  dependants'.  It  is  evident,  too,  that  such  matters 
as  tolls,  which  remained  formally  subject  to  the  royal  authority,  were 
really  in  the  hands  of  the  great  nobles,  and  perhaps  of  the  petty  nobles 
as  welP.  In  short,  what  with  law  and  usurpation,  the  kingdom  was  in 
process  of  dissolution. 


Section  II.    Humbert  Whitehands  in  Burgundian 

POLITICS. 

Since  the  dominions  of  the  House  of  Savoy  had  for  their  nucleus 
lands  which  formed  fractions  of  the  Kingdom  of  Burgundy  and  only 
obtained  the  rank  of  a  feudal  state  through  the  break-up  of  the  larger 
entity,  their  earlier  history  necessarily  begins  in  the  general  history  of 
the  realm  of  which  they  were  a  part.  Only  by  degrees  does  a  soi- 
disant  state  emerge  from  the  welter  of  events  to  have  a  separate  history 
of  its  own.  Our  first  task,  therefore,  is  to  trace  the  first  appearance  of 
its  comital  house  and  the  latter's  attainment  of  a  semi-independent 
position  in  consequence  of  the  practical  dissolution  of  the  Burgundian 
monarchy. 

Sangall.  viaj.  995  {M.G.H.  Script.  I.  81),  "quosdani  suorum  patema  hereditate 
private  conatus." 

^  Thietmar,  Chron.  vii.  21  {M.G.H.  Script,  in.  846),  "In  hiis  partibus  nullus 
vocatur  comes,  nisi  is  qui  ducis  honore  possidet." 

^  See  on  the  German  Dukes  Mayer,  Deut.  u.  Franz.  Verfassungsgeschichte,  II. 
pp.  361-72.     These  functions  certainly  belonged  later  to  the  Counts  of  Savoy. 

*  See  below,  pp.  26-7. 


8        Humbert  Whitehands  in   Burgundian  politics 

After  his  defeat  in  the  war  against  his  revolted  barons  Rudolf  III 
appears  to  have  embarked  on  a  partly  new  policy.  He  could  exercise 
little  or  no  control  over  his  lay  vassals.  There  remained  the  ecclesi- 
astical ones.  It  is  true  that  the  appointment  to  bishoprics  had  largely 
fallen  into  the  hands  of  the  great  vassals,  and  with  that  went  the  control 
of  the  extensive  episcopal  lands  and  immune  jurisdiction^  But  there 
remained  some  sees  which  still  depended  largely  on  the  Crown,  and  it 
seems  to  have  been  Rudolf's  object  by  strengthening  them  to  strengthen 
a  sort  of  official  nobility  as  a  counter-weight  to  the  lay  noblest  In 
this  he  was  pursuing  much  the  same  path  as  the  Saxon  Emperors  in 
Germany  and  Italy ^;  though  he  seems  to  have  pursued  it  more  rapidly 
considering  the  means  at  his  disposal.  Accordingly  his  method  was  to 
grant  the  countships  to  bishops  wherever  circumstances,  such  as  the 
absence  of  great  lay  vassals,  the  extinction  of  an  existing  line  of  Counts* 
or  the  vacancy  of  the  county^,  allowed  it  to  be  done.  Such  a  policy  of 
course  required  for  its  success  the  retention  in  the  royal  hands  of  the 
power  of  nominating  bishops  to  the  favoured  sees  and  also  some  con- 
siderable independent  demesne  retained  by  the  Crown ;  neither  of 
which  conditions  appears  from  the  sequel  to  have  been  in  existence. 

The  first  conferment  of  a  county  on  a  bishop  which  has  come  down 
to  us  is  that  of  the  county  of  Tarentaise  on  its  Archbishop  Amizo. 
Here  the  reason  given  is  the  depopulation  caused  by  the  Saracen  in- 
cursions, from  which  the  Archbishop  Amizo  was  in  course  of  attempting 
to  bring  about  a  recovery*^.  This  was  followed  in  999  by  a  similar 
grant  of  the  county  of  the  Vallais''  to  Hugh,  Bishop  of  Sion.  But 
here  it  is  possible,  although  not  likely,  that  the  ancient  Counts  were  not 
extinct,  and  it  is  also  just  possible  their  claims  passed  to  the  future 
House  of  Savoy ^     Other  similar  grants  were  to  come  later. 

It  would  however  be  a  mistake  to  emphasize  too  much  the  personal 
intervention  of  Rudolf  III  in  these  acts.  The  grant  to  Archbishop 
Amizo,  and  that  later  (1022)  to  Archbishop  Burchard  of  Vienne,  had 

1  See  Thietmar,  vii.  21  (1016)  [M.G.H.  Script.  III.  845),  "  episcopatus  (R.) 
hiis  dat,  qui  a  principibus  hiis  eliguntur...Unde  liii  (episcopi  etc.)  manibus  complicatis 
cunctis  primatibus  velud  regi  suo  serviunt,  at  sic  pace  fruuntur. " 

-  See  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  p.  117. 

^  See  Pivano,  Stato  e  Chiesa,  pp.  275-6;  Hauck,  Kircheiigeschichte  Detitschlands, 
III.  59-65,  and  below,  Cap.  il.  Sect.  I. 

*  As  at  Vienne;  see  below,  pp.  14  and  19. 

^  Lausanne ;  see  below,  p.  1 8. 

^  M-H.P.  Chart,  i.  304,  "  Archiepiscopatus  Hyberinis  incursionibus  penitus  de- 
populatus  quern  Amiso  prout  vires  appetunt comitatu  donamus." 

^  M.D.R.  xxix.  49;  the  Vallais  stretched  at  this  time  from  the  sources  of  the 
Rhone  to  Martigny;  the  diocese  of  Sion  included  Old  Chablais  up  to  Lake  Geneva. 

8  See  below,  pp.  67-8 ;  the  doubt  concerns  the  county  of  Count  Ulric  the 
Anselmid.     See  below,  p.   64. 


The  episcopal  Counts  9 

parallels  in  Italy,  due  it  seems  largely  to  the  break-up  of  the  comital 
power  there,  often  accompanied  by  the  disappearance  of  the  comital 
famiHes\  It  might  be  in  part  a  desperate  attempt  to  restore  a  public 
authority,  where  it  had  quite  or  almost  vanished,  by  investing  the 
bishop  with  it.  For  the  Counts,  too,  of  the  Carolingian  Empire  suffered 
their  vicissitudes,  and  if  in  some  cases,  especially  in  France  and 
Burgundy,  they  emerged  triumphant  at  the  last  at  the  head  of  small 
feudal  states,  in  others  the  power  of  the  hereditary  official  faded  away, 
and  the  county  broke  up  into  smaller  fractions  ruled  by  the  lords  of 
the  soil.  As  we  shall  see,  the  Counts  of  Savoy  succeeded,  though 
with  difficulty,  in  evading  this  fate,  and  not  only  so,  but  they  were  more 
fortunate  than  most  of  their  competitors,  in  surviving  the  period  of 
the  great  monarchical  formations  of  the  Later  Middle  Ages. 

During  these  years,  however,  the  unhappy  Rudolf  does  not  seem  to 
have  made  any  real  progress  in  establishing  his  authority.  The  rem- 
nant of  his  domains  lay  chiefly-  between  the  Jura  and  the  Alps.  We 
find  him  (January  999)  at  the  abbey  of  St  Maurice  in  the  Vallais,  where 
his  natural  brother.  Archbishop  Burchard  of  Lyons,  was  provost,  at  Basel 
(999)",  Vevey  (998),  the  abbey  of  Payerne  (998) \  There  is  a  suspicious 
fondness  here  for  ecclesiastical  foundations,  reminding  us  of  the  later 
taunt  of  the  German  chronicler  that  he  lived  on  the  bishops'  revenues*. 

What  the  King  himself  could  not  do  was  partially  accomplished  for 
him  by  foreign  intervention^  In  the  summer  of  999  his  aunt,  the 
Empress  Adelaide,  widow  of  Otto  the  Great,  then  near  the  conclusion 
of  her  eventful  history,  entered  Burgundy  on  his  behalf.  She  went 
to  Payerne,  St  Maurice,  Geneva  and  Lausanne,  and  then  to  Orbe, 
all  it  may  be  noted  in  old  Rudolfian  territory,  and  did  her  best  in  the 
cause  of  peace.      At  Orbe  there  seems  to  have  been  an  assembly". 

^  Cf.  Poupardin,  Botirgogne,  pp.  325-7,  and  for  Italy  Pivano,  Stato  e  Chiesa, 
pp.  36-7. 67-8, 149-52.  Thecounty  of  Astiofters  a  well-marked  instance;  v.C.  Cipolla, 
Di  Audace  vescovo  cTAsti,  Misc.  di  stor.  ital.  XXVI.  ;  Di  Brunengo  vescovo  if  Asti, 
Misc.  di  stor.  ital.  xxviii.;  Di  Rozone  vescovo  cfAsti,  Mem.  della  r.  Accad.  delle 
scienze  di  Torino,  Ser.  11.  Vol.  XLii. 

'•^  There  were  exceptions,  e.g.  the  castle  etc.  at  Vienne,  in  the  Viennois,  and  lands 
in  Savoy  and  the  Genevois. 

^  See  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  p.  117,  who  points  out  the  probable  connection  with 
Adelaide's  visit. 

■*  See  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  pp.  114  and  117. 

'  Thietmar,  vii.  21  {M.G.H.  III.  845),  "ad  suani  vero  utilitatem  pauca  tenens,  ex 
inpensis  antistitum  vivit." 

*  That  Adelaide's  intervention  was  a  part  of  German  policy  is  made  probable  by 
Emp.  Otto  Ill's  previous  diploma  confirming  its  Alsatian  domains  to  the  abbey  of 
Payerne,  6th  Feb.  998  (Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  p.  i  i8j,  besides  the  intrinsic  likelihood 
of  the  fact. 

^  "  Cum  rege  et  principibus  patriae  pacis  et  honestatis  conferens  negocia."  Odilo, 
Epitaphiurn  Adelheidae,  i-j  {M.G.H.  Script,  iv.  643). 


lo      Humbert  Whitehands  in   Burgundian  politics 

She  was  not  altogether  successful,  we  are  told,  but  some  of  the  King's 
quarrelling  fideles  she  was  able  to  induce  to  a  peaces  It  seems 
Rudolf  III  went  either  with  her,  or  a  little  later  to  Germany  to  Bruchsal 
in  Swabia  for  a  meeting  with  Otto  IIP.  Soon  after,  in  the  middle  of 
December  999,  the  Empress  Adelaide  died. 

Yet  some  effect  resulted  from  her  efforts  for  peace.  It  can  hardly 
be  an  accident  that  for  the  rest  of  his  reign  we  find  Rudolf  steadily 
supported  by  at  least  two  houses  of  the  great  nobility.  One  of  these 
may  be  styled  the  Anselmids.  Anselm*,  the  head  of  the  family,  vir 
itiluster,  had  married  Aldiud,  concubine  of  King  Conrad  (c.  964). 
Thus  Burchard  II,  Archbishop  of  Lyons,  King  Rudolf's  natural  brother, 
was  also  uterine  brother  to  Anselm's  three  sons,  Burchard,  Archbishop 
of  Vienne  (looi  (?)-io3i),  Anselm,  Bishop  of  Aosta  and  Arch- 
chancellor  (994,  1025)^  and  Ulric  (1019,  Advocate  of  Archbishop 
Burchard  of  Vienne).  The  second  family  on  which  the  feeble  King 
relied  was  that  of  the  Humbertines,  the  later  Counts  of  Savoy.  The 
many  difficult  problems  which  arise  as  to  the  members  of  this  family 
and  their  connection  with  the  Anselmids  will  be  dealt  with  in  a  subse- 
quent section  ^  Here  I  need  mention  only  two  personages,  Oddo, 
Bishop  of  Belley  (995  (?),  1003)",  and  Count  Humbert  I  Whitehands'', 
the  admitted  ancestor  of  the  House  of  Savoy. 

^  "  Pacis  ut  semper  arnica,  pacis  caritatisque  causa  paternum  solum  adiit,  fidelibus 
nepotis  sui  Rodulfi  regis  inter  se  litigantibus,  quibus  potuit  pacis  foedera  contulit, 
quibus  non  potuit,  more  sibi  solito  Deo  totum  commisit  "  (Odilo,  13,  M.G.H.  Script. 
IV.  642). 

^  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  p.  1 19,  based  on  the  dating  of  a  diploma  of  Rudolf  III. 

^  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  pp.  270  and  386,  n.  i,  following  Manteyer,  Origines, 
pp.  466-70,  480-1,  identifies  Anselm  with  Count  Anselm  who  appears  with  his  brother 
Count  Ulric  in  a  Viennese  placitum  of  King  Conrad  in  943.  But  the  dates  are  far 
apart.  Anselm  does  not  seem  to  have  married  Aldiud  till  c.  970;  he  was  living  in 
1002  ;  he  is  not  called  Count.  No  doubt  however  the  two  Counts  were  relatives 
of  his. 

*  Anselm  furnishes  a  much  desired  proof  that  Aosta  belonged  to  the  Burgundian 
Kingdom  at  this  time  and  not  to  Italy.  Besides  being  Arch-chancellor  of  Burgundy 
(see  below,  p.  11,  n.  i),  he  attended  the  Burgundian  Synods  of  Anse  (and  no  Italian 
ones  at  all)  in  994  and  1025  (Savio,  Gd  aiitichi  vescovi,  p.  87 ;  cf.  Manteyer,  Paix, 
p.  106,  nn.  I  and  2);  and  witnesses  Rudolf  Ill's  diplomas  from  loir  (cf.  below,  p.  14, 
n.  2,  and  p.  18,  n.  4).  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  reputed  Synod  of  Anse  of  990  never 
took  place  (see  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  p.  302,  n.  1). 

^  See  Cap.  i.  Sect.  in. 

^  Perhaps  it  assumes  too  much  to  consider  the  bishop  a  Humbertine  in  this 
section;    but  it  seems  to  be  generally  acknowledged. 

'■  The  surname  Albamanus,  aiix  blanches  mains,  goes  back  only  to  the  fourteenth 
century,  but  it  is  extremely  convenient  for  distinction,  and  probably  rests  on  true 
tradition.  The  proof  of  the  identification  of  the  Count  Hupertus  of  Wipo,  30  and 
32  (M.G.H.  IV.  270),  with  Humbert  Whitehands  lies  in  their  connection  with  the 
county  of  Aosta  and  with  Queen  Ermengarde.     The  earliest  undisputed  document 


Anselmids,   Humbertines,  Anscarids  ii 

These  two  families,  it  will  be  noted,  both  owed  part  of  their  strength 
to  the  bishoprics  held  by  their  members,  in  the  acquisition  of  which  it 
would  probably  be  a  mistake  to  ascribe  too  great  a  share  to  the  King's 
influence,  although  he  must,  one  would  think,  have  promoted  his  half- 
brother  Burchard  II  of  Lyons  to  the  Abbacy  (from  the  Provostship)  of 
St  Maurice'  by  his  own  initiative.  Since  the  King  held  the  abbot's 
domains  the  revival  of  the  abbotship  involved  a  diminution  of  Rudolfs 
own  patrimony.  Burchard  of  Vienne,  too,  whose  family  seems  to 
have  belonged  to  the  intra -Jurane  land  only",  would  probably  have  the 
King's  favour  in  attaining  his  see  on  the  Rhone,  where  he  might 
do  something  to  maintain  the  royal  authority.  His  connection  with 
the  Humbertines,  however,  would  have  considerable  influence  in 
his  promotion,  seeing  that  the  earliest  Humbertine  possessions,  so 
far  as  attested  by  their  charters  of  donation,  fall  preponderantly  in 
the  counties  of  Belley,  Savoy  proper^,  and  Sermorens*,  where  they 
were  close  to  the  royal  domains  left  in  Savoy  and  its  neighbour- 
hood^ 

More  powerful  than  either  of  these  family  groups,  and  unlike  them 
no  supporter  of  Rudolf  III,  was  Otto-William",  Count  of  what  was  later 
called  the  Free  county  (Franche  Comte)  of  Burgundy.  It  was  in 
Rudolf  Ill's  day  a  collection  of  counties  (Portois,  Varais  [Besangon], 
etc.)  between  the  Saone  and  the  Jura''.  Otto-William  was  a  member  of 
that  Anscarid  House  of  Ivrea,  which  had  been  driven  from  the  Italian 
throne  by  Otto  the  Great :  he  was  son  of  King  Adalbert  and  grandson 
of   Berengar  II.     His    mother  was    Gerberga,    daughter   of  Lambert, 


of  Humbert  Whitehands  dates  from  Aosta,  19th  Oct.  1024  (Car.  /\t'o.  lvii.  Cibrario 
e  Promis,  Docmnenti  ecc.  p.  100)  ;  but  there  is  a  Humbertine  Count  Humbert  at 
court  in  roo9  (Car.  Reg.  XXVin.  Chevalier,  Cartttlaire  de  St  Andr^-le-bas  de  Vienne, 
No.  58*)  and  connected  with  Queen  Ermengarde  in  1022-3  (Car.  Reg.  LIII.  Chevalier, 
op.  cit.  No.  154)  who  will  be  discussed  in  Section  III. 

'  Burchard  II  of  Lyons  was  promoted  to  the  Abbacy  between  26th  May  looo  and 
7th  Nov.  looi  (Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  p.  329,  n.  7).  Bishop  Anselm  of  Aosta 
succeeded  as  provost  by  2nd  March  1002  and  still  held  it  c.  1014  {id.  p.  330,  n.  i). 
It  is  important,  as  a  proof  of  the  position  the  Anselmids  held  in  the  royal  favour,  to 
note  that  Burchard  II  of  Lyons  was  Arch-chancellor  in  998  til!  c.  loio,  and  then 
Anselm  of  Aosta  in  loi  i  and  1018.      See  Manteyer,  Origines,  pp.  468-9. 

2  See  below,  Sect.  ill.  pp.  67-8. 

'  i.e.  roughly  the  deanery  of  Savoy  ;  see  Map  i.  ;  and  see  below,  pp.  94-5. 

*  See  below,  Sect.  iv. 

*  See  Poupardin,  Boitrgog/te,  pp.  194-5,  and  cf.  Car.  Reg.  cvn.  (Cipolla,  Monn- 
menla  Novaliciensia,  I.  161).     See  below,  pp.  15  and  51-2. 

*  William  seems  to  have  been  his  original  name.  Perhaps  Otto  was  added  on  his 
adoption  by  Duke  Henry  of  Burgundy,  whose  elder  brother  and  predecessor  was 
Eudes  (Otto). 

^  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  pp.  201-2,  231-3. 


12       Humbert  Whitehands  in   Burgundian  politics 

Count  of  Chaunois'.  About  961-2,  when  her  father-in-law's  king- 
dom was  falling  before  the  Germans,  she  fied  back  to  Burgundy,  and 
thither  her  little  son  was  cleverly  smuggled  to  her  by  some  monk.  Our 
jejune  chroniclers  leave  us  ignorant  of  the  way  in  which  the  child  was 
conveyed  from  his  enemies'  hands.  After  Adalbert's  death  (c  971-2), 
she  married  again,  this  time  Henry,  Duke  of  French  Burgundy,  who  also 
held  the  counties  east  of  the  Saone  above  mentioned.  Otto-William 
had  the  good  fortune  to  be  adopted  by  his  stepfather  and  was  thus  put 
on  the  way  to  greatness.  By  the  Duke"s  favour  he  married  Ermentrude, 
the  widow  of  Alberic  II,  Count  of  Macon,  and  had  obtained  the 
latter's  county  by  the  year  986,  to  the  prejudice  of  Alberic  IPs  sons,  not 
to  mention  other  domains  which  he  acquired  in  French  Burgundy. 
When,  on  the  15th  October  1002,  Duke  Henry  died,  Otto-William 
succeeded  him  in  those  counties  (Portois,  etc.)  which  lay  to  the  east  of 
the  Saone  and  in  Rudolf  Ill's  kingdom.  At  the  same  time  he  en- 
deavoured to  seize  the  French  Duchy  of  Burgundy,  but  here  he  was 
resisted  by  the  Capetian  monarch,  Robert  the  Pious.  It  appears  he 
had  given  up  the  struggle  by  1005;  the  Duchy  was  lost  to  him,  but  he 
still  retained  Macon  and  his  other  French  domains,  which  he  handed 
over  first  to  his  eldest  son  Guy  I  (ob.  c.  1005),  and  then  to  the 
latter's  son  Otto.  Otto-William  was  not  only  powerful  through  his 
material  possessions ;  he  had  great  allies.  One  daughter  married 
Landry,  Count  of  Nevers,  another  named  Agnes,  William  V  the  Great, 
Duke  of  Aquitaine,  and  the  third  William  II,  Count  of  Provence.  His 
second  son  Rainald,  who  was  to  succeed  him  in  "  Franche  Comte  "  (to 
use  an  anachronous,  but  hardly  dispensable  name),  had  married  Alice 
(Adela),  daughter  of  Richard  II,  Duke  of  Normandy".  They  all  in- 
creased the  importance  of  the  Count  of  the  Burgundians,  as  Otto- 
William,  possessor  of  several  counties,  began  to  style  himself^ 

The  Empress  Adelaide's  death  occurred  not  long  before  that  of 
her  grandson,  the  Emperor  Otto  III.  In  June  1002  his  cousin,  the 
Duke  of  Bavaria,  was  crowned  his  successor  as  Henry  II.  The  new 
monarch,  who  took  occasionally  the  new  title  of  King  of  the  Romans*, 
thereby  laying  claim  to  the  Imperial  position  in  right  of  his  German 
kingship,  was  the  son  of  Gisela,  Rudolf  Ill's  half-sister.  As  Rudolf  had 
no  legitimate  children  by  his  wife  Agiltrude,  Henry  II  was  his  next  heir. 

^  For  Otto-William's  maternal  descent  and  marriage  see  Poupardin,  Bourgogne, 
pp.   414-9- 

"  See  for  all  this  Poupardin,  Boii7-gog7te,  pp.  220-'/,  and  cf.  Hirsch,  Hemrich  II, 
I.  383.  William  of  Aquitaine's  marriage  to  Agnes  took  place  later  than  1023;  see 
Bresslau,  Konrad  II,  p.   74. 

^  Comes  Btirguiidionian  and  the  like;  see  Poupardin,  Bottrgogne,  p.  233. 

■*  See  Bryce,  Holy  Roman  Empire,  p.  531,  and  below,  p.  168,  n.  4. 


Henry   II,   Queen   Ermengarde  13 

This  did  not  confer  an  absolute  right  to  the  succession  in  Burgundy,  but 
it  gave  a  strong  claim,  and  there  was  a  strong  hand  to  back  it.  Hence 
it  seems  likely  that  Henry  H  aimed  from  early  in  his  reign  at  securing 
his  uncle's  kingdom.  That  in  itself,  with  its  depleted  royal  demesne 
and  insubordinate  nobles,  would  not  be  a  very  profitable  acquisition ; 
but  it  commanded  all  the  western  Alpine  passes,  the  Great  St  Bernard, 
Little  St  Bernard,  Mont  Cenis  and  Mont  Genevre,  which  led  into  Italy; 
and  over  Italy  Henry  was  determined  to  rule  as  the  Ottos  had  done. 
Yet  under  Ardoin,  Marquess  of  Ivrea,  Italy  had  revolted  from  the 
German  domination  at  Otto  Ill's  death,  and  though  Henry  had  been 
easily  successful  in  a  campaign  in  1004^  which  secured  his  coronation 
at  Pavia,  Ardoin  almost  immediately  recovered  much  of  his  lost  ground, 
and  shared  the  country  with  his  rival". 

It  is  tempting  to  see  a  reflex  of  these  events  in  Henry  II's  next 
action  in  Burgundy.  He  marched  to  Basel,  the  frontier  Burgundian 
town,  and  took  possession  of  it  about  July  1006.  Part  of  the  diocese  was 
already  in  Germany  and  the  Bishop  Adalbero  was  probably  a  consent- 
ing party.  Had  Henry  and  Rudolf  come  to  an  agreement  about  the 
succession  and  was  Basel  the  guarantee,  the  entrance  to  the  kingdom 
being  handed  over  to  the  heir  ?  There  is  no  information  on  the  point 
come  down  to  us^ 

Some  years  now  passed  by  with  nothing  more  to  signalize  them  than 
a  transient  revolt^  and  Rudolf's  second  marriage.  This  last  event  in  all 
likelihood  took  place  early  in  loii.  Agiltrude,  Rudolf's  first  wife,  died 
seemingly  on  or  just  before  the  17th  February  1009'.  Neither  of  her 
nor  of  Ermengarde,  her  successor,  do  we  know  the  family.  But  Ermen- 
garde was  a  widow  and  had  two  unnamed  sons";  and  she  appears 
in    the  documents  in  connection   both  with  the  Anselmids    and   the 


^  The  statement  of  Ademar  de  Chabannes  (ill.  37,  M.G.H.  iv.  133)  that  Rudolf 
besieged  Pavia  for  Henry  II  in  1004  (1002?)  must  be  due  to  some  confusion,  else 
there  would  be  some  other  trace  of  the  fact.  See  Hirsch,  Hcinrich  II,  i.  310,  and 
Poupardin,  Bourgogyie,  p.  120,  n.  i. 

-  For  rienry  II's  claims  see  Hirs  h,  Heinrich  II,  pp.  388-92.  On  Italian  affairs 
at  this  time  see  below,  pp.  167  fiT. 

^  For  Henry  II's  occupation  of  Basel  see  Hirsch,  Heinrich  II,  pp.  391-4.  Cf. 
Poupardin,  Botirgoi^ne,  pp.  120-1.  There  had  been  a  treaty  of  succession  before  1016: 
"  quod  longe  prius  "  Rudolf  "  ei  sacramentis  post  mortem  suam  sanciorat. "  Thietmar, 
VII.  20,  M.G.H.  III.  845. 

*  That  of  Tuto;  see  Hirsch-Bresslau,  Heinrich  II,  iii.  35,  and  Poupardin, 
Bourgopte,  p.    117,   n.   3. 

'  See  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  p.  125,  n.  i. 

*  Thietmar,  vii.  20,  and  see  below,  p.  18.  Bresslau's  (Hirsch-Bresslau,  Heinrich  II, 
III.  35)  view  that  their  ambition  added  to  Rudolf  Ill's  difficulties  with  his  nobles 
lacks  the  support  of  any  precept  in  their  favour. 


14      Humbert  Whitehands  in   Burgundian  politics 

Humbertines^  It  has  been  supposed  she  is  identical  with  the  Countess 
Ermengarde,  wife  of  Manasse,  Count  (probably)  of  Geneva,  who  c.  looo 
exchanged  land  at  St  Andre  in  Savoy  for  some  in  the  Genevois  with  the 
Bishop  Humbert  of  Grenoble ;  but,  though  the  date  and  district  are 
suggestive,  there  is  no  further  evidence ^ 

Presumably  shortly  after  their  marriage,  Rudolf  III  proceeded  to 
endow  his  wife  with  domains.  On  the  24th  April  loii  he  made  two 
important  grants  at  Aix-les-bains  where  the  marriage  may  have  taken 
place.  The  first  gave  Ermengarde,  by  the  advice  of  the  nobles  of  the 
kingdom,  the  city  of  Vienne  with  its  castle  Pupet  (later  called  Eumedium), 
the  county  of  Vienne  with  the  alods  and  serfs  there  which  he  owned, 
and  the  county  of  Sermorens,  likewise  with  his  alods  and  serfs.  Now 
these  counties  had  been  held  by  Charles-Constantine,  son  of  the 
Emperor  Lewis  III  the  Blind,  as  late  as  962.  It  is  natural  to  suppose 
that  his  two  sons,  Richard  and  Upert  (=  Hubert,  Humbert),  were  dead ; 
and  one  wonders  whether  Queen  Ermengarde  who  repeats  the  name  of 
Ermengarde,  daughter  of  Emperor  Lewis  II,  the  grandmother  of 
Charles-Constantine,  had  claims  on  the  inheritance.  No  transfer  of 
the  publica  poiestas  is  explicitly  mentioned,  but  doubtless  it  is  implied 
in  the  wording  of  the  diploma.  In  any  case  Ermengarde  can  hardly 
have  exercised  it,  and  perhaps  we  may  look  on  the  grant  as  being  from 
this  point  of  view  the  seal  of  the  dissolution  of  the  county.  What  she 
got  of  course  was  the  comital  demesne,  which  went  with  the  office'*, 

^  See  especially  Car.  Reg.  xxxiv.  (Ermengarde  and  the  two  Archbishops  Burchard), 
id.  XXXVii.  (  =  Chevalier,  Cartulaire  de  St  Andr^-le-bas,  p.  253)  (Archbishop  Burchard 
of  Vienne  and  Bishop  Ansehn),  XLIX.  {—  Cartulaire  de  Savigny,  ed.  Bernard,  I.  317) 
(the  two  Burchards),  Liii.  (  =  Chevaher,  Cartulaire  de  St  Andri-le-bas,  p.  154)  (royal 
house  and  Hurabertines),  Lxxxiii.,  Lxxxiv.  (^Bernard,  Cartulaire  de  Savigny,  i. 
318)  (Ermengarde,  Count  Humbert),  Lxxxvi.  {  =  AI.N.P.  Chart,  i.  col.  499) ;  and 
for  Count  Humbert  Whitehands'  advocacy  of  the  Queen  after  Rudolf  Hi's  death  see 
charters  cited  below,  p.  38. 

-  Charter  in  Marion,  Cartulaire  de  Grenoble,  B.  cxvni.  p.  173.  Their  daughter 
was  named  Aniana.  The  identification  was  made  by  Cibrario  and  Promis,  Doc. 
pp.  65-75  ff.  and  supported  by  Secretan,  Observations  sur  les  chartes  relatifs  a  la 
fainille  de  Humbert  aux  Blanches  Mains,  M.D.G.  xvi.   329. 

•*  The  wording  of  the  diploma  has:  "Ego  jugali  amore  attractus  primatumque 
regni  mei  consilio  ammonitus,  dono  dilectissime  sponse  mee  Irmingardi  Viennam 
metropolim  civitatem  cum  Pupet  castello  et  comitatum  Viennensem  cum  alodis  et 
mancipiis  que  in  ipso  comitatu  habere  videor;  et  dono  ei  comitatum  Saimoracensem 
cum  alodis  et  mancipiis.  Hec  omnia,  que  supra  nominata  sunt,  habeat  et  possideat 
sub  libera  potestate  habendi,  donandi,  vendendi,  commutandi  vel  quicquid  illi 
placuerit  inde  faciendi "  (Car.  Reg.  xxxil.  Chevalier,  Cartulaire  de  St  Andri-le-bas, 
p.  310).  Cf.  for  the  meaning  of  comitatus  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  pp.  430-57.  The 
Burgundian  charters  (those  to  bishops  and  that  to  Ermengarde)  seem  much  less 
explicit  than  their  analogues  in  Germany  and  Italy,  as  to  the  grant  of  public 
functions. 


Queen   Ermengarde,   Henry   II  15 

along  with  the  royal  demesnes  in  the  two  districts.  The  second 
diploma  of  the  same  date  granted  Aix-les-bains,  Annecy  and  other 
scattered  royal  properties  to  the  Queen  ^. 

Two  new  grants  were  made  by  Rudolf  III  to  his  wife  some  years 
later.  On  the  21st  February  in  his  twenty-third  year,  the  King 
being  then  at  Loges  in  the  Jurane  district,  he  gave  her  St  Pierre  and 
St  Jean  d'Albigny,  Miolans,  Conflans  [Albertville]  and  the  Novum 
Castellum  super  Isaram  fluminem,  all  in  the  county  of  Savoy^  The 
second,  dated  at  Strasburg  1016,  gave  Aix-les-bains  (again  !),  Lemenc, 
Chambery  and  St  Cassin,  all  in  the  same  county^  Thus  Ermengarde 
possessed  no  inconsiderable  portion  of  the  then  small  county  of  Savoy*. 

These  gifts  to  Ermengarde  perhaps  stand  in  some  relation  to  the 
King's  recognition  of  his  nephew  Henry  II  as  his  heir.  Were  they  part 
of  the  price  which  she  and  her  connections  exacted  for  their  support  of 
that  policy,  along  with  the  "ineffabilis  pecunia  "  lavished  on  them  by 
Henry  IT'?  The  immediate  causes  of  that  recognition  appear  to  have 
been,  on  Henry  II's  side,  the  renewed  unrest  in  West  Lombardy  after 
Ardoin's  death ;  on  Rudolf's,  the  increasing  difficulty  he  had  in  maintain- 
ing himself  against  his  unruly  vassals.  As  to  the  first  it  would  seem 
the  anti-German  party  in  Italy  had  even  invited  Rudolf  III  himself  to 
intervene,  offering  him  as  a  bribe  the  Mark  of  Ivrea.  No  doubt  the 
feeble  King  would  only  be  a  catspaw  of  some  of  his  nobles,  but  whether 

^  "  Aquis  villam,  Anassiacum,  Rouda,  abbatiam  Montis  Jovensis  S.  Petri,  Font 
regale  Castellum,  partem  villae  Evonant,  Novum  Castellum,  Averniacum  et  Arinis.' 
The  identifications  are  given  by  Bresslau,  Konrad  II,  ii.  59,  viz.  Aix,  Annecy,  Rue, 
St  Pierre  des  Monts  Joux,  Font  in  Fribourg,  Yvonant,  Neuchatel,  Auvemier  and 
St  Blaise ;  for  text  see  Car.  Reg.  xxxiii.  Cibrario  and  Promis,  Doc.  p.  17,  and  Musde 
des  Archives  Dipartmetitales ,  No.  20. 

■■'  "  Quasdam  cortes  in  comilatu  Savogiensi,  viz.  Albiniacum  maiorem  cum  ecclesia 
S-  Petri,  alium  Albiniacum  cum  ecclesia  S.  Joannis,  Meiolanum,  Conflenz  cum 
ecclesia  S.  Mariae,  et  Novum  Castellum  super  Isaram  fluminem  "  (Car.  Reg.  xxxvii. 
Chevalier,  Carltdaire  de  St  Andr^-le-bas,  p.  253).  The  connection  with  the  following 
charter  of  year  xxiv.  makes  one  inclined  to  think  that  Rudolf's  reign  began  between 
February  and  June,  and  thus  both  would  be  of  1016.     See  next  note. 

•*  "  In  comitatu  seu  in  pago  Gratianopolitano  vel  Savoiensi "  (Car.  Reg.  XLi. 
Chevalier,  Carhilaire  de  St  Andrd-le-has,  p.  253).  The  charter  is  dated  10 14/5  yr.  xxiv. 
(which  begins  1016).  As  the  place  of  dating  is  Strasburg,  the  regnal  year  must  be 
right  and  that  of  the  Incarnation  wrong.  The  originals  are  not  preserved  of  this 
charter  or  the  preceding.  Cf  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  p.  124,  n.  8,  and  pp.  194-5. 
There  is  the  further  difficulty  that  Rudolf's  xxiv.  year  would  begin  19  Oct. — Nov. 
1016  if  he  reckoned  from  his  father  Conrad's  death,  and  the  meeting  at  Strasburg  was 
in  June.     Was  he  after  all  elected  King  earlier  in  993? 

*  Cf.  Carutti,  Umberto  I  Biancamano,  p.  81,  and  Menabrea,  Origines  fiodales, 
pp.  66-7,  and  cf.  Gingins-la-Sarra,  Aleinoire  sur  Vorigine  de  la  Maison  de  Savoie, 
M.D.R.   XX.  235. 

'  See  below,  p.  17,  n.  4. 


1 6      Humbert  Whitehands  in   Burgundian  politics 

of  the  Humbertine-Anselmid  group  or  of  the  great  Otto- William,  who 
belonged  to  the  last  Italian  royal  house  and  had  extensive  proprietary 
claims  in  the  Mark  of  Ivrea,  is  not  said  in  our  sole  source^  It  would 
obviously  be  Henry  II's  policy  to  buy  off  Rudolf  and  to  make  renewed 
efforts  to  control  the  dangerous  Alpine  frontier.  Rudolf,  however,  had 
as  strong  reasons,  perhaps,  for  a  rapprochement,  connected  with  the 
same  Otto- William.  We  are  told  that  his  vassals  were  endeavouring  to 
dethrone  him  and  that  he  thereupon  begged  aid  of  the  Emperor  I  It 
is  evident  from  the  sequel  that  Otto-William  must  have  been  their 
leader. 

Whichever  party  was  most  eager  for  the  alliance,  Henry  II  invited 
his  uncle  to  meet  him  at  Bamberg,  where  he  held  his  Easter  court  on 
April  I,  1016.  Rudolf  however  was  unable  to  proceed  thither  and 
asked  the  Emperor  to  come  to  the  frontier  for  the  interview^  This 
took  place,  probably  early  in  June,  at  Strasburg'*.  Rudolf  was  accom- 
panied by  Queen  Ermengarde  and  her  two  sons^  who  it  seems  did 
homage  to  the  Emperor.  The  subjects  of  the  conference  were  two,  the 
performance  of  Rudolf's  old  promise  to  make  Henry  his  heir^  and  the 
measures  to  be  taken  against  their  common  enemy  Otto- William.  Now 
accordingly  Henry's  heirship  was  publicly  declared,  and  Rudolf  III 
obtained  for  him  the  homage  of  some  Burgundian  nobles,  and  promised 
that  of  the  rest ;  while  at  the  same  time  he  agreed  that  no  important 

^  Bishop  Leo  of  Vercelli's  letter  to  Henry  II.  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  pp.  i2r-4, 
and  H.  Bloch,  Beitrdge  zur  Geschichte  des  Bischofs  Leo  v.  Vercelli  u.  seiner  Zeit,  Neues 
Archiv,  xxil.,both  consider  this  letter  to  be  dated  early  in  1016.  'Bxesslz.Vi,  Heinrich  If, 
III.  120-5,  gives  the  end  of  1016  as  date,  but  he  had  not  all  the  letters  before  him. 
See  below,  Cap.  11.  Sect.  in.  pp.  170-3.  Henry  IPs  diploma  1014  Jan. — Sept.  to 
Fruttuaria  shows  Otto- William  had  already  made  to  that  monastery  large  grants  of 
possessions  in  the  Mark  of  Ivrea  {M.G.H.  Dipl.  in.  379);  cf.  Poupardin,  Bourgogne, 
pp.  420-9. 

2  Alpertus  of  Metz,  De  Diversitate  Temporum,  li.  i^(M.G.H.  iv.716),  "Ruodoldus 
...propter  mansuetudinem  et  innocentiam  vitae  a  quibus  principibus  suis  conteniptus 
est,  unde  et  de  regno  eum  expellere  temptaverunt.  Qua  necessitate  compulsus  ad 
imperatorem  venit."  That  the  rebels'  leader  was  Otto-William  is  shown  by  the  fact 
that  Henry's  first  act  after  the  treaty  was  to  distribute  (only  of  course  in  theory) 
Otto-William's  benefices  among  supporters  of  his  own  (Thietmar,  VII.  20) ;  see  below. 
The  reading  "  Willehelmus  Pictaviensis "  of  Thietmar  must  be  a  slip  of  the  pen, 
Pictaviensis  for  Portuensis  (O.  W.  being  Count  of  Portois),  made  the  more  easily  as 
Otto-William's  son-in-law,  Duke  William  of  Aquitaine,  was  Willehelmus  Pictaviensis. 
Otto-William  would  be  the  more  active  as  his  hopes  of  acquiring  French  Burgundy 
were  finally  dashed  the  year  before  (1015)  by  the  appointment  of  a  Capetian  Duke. 
Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  p.  123. 

3  Thietmar,  vii.  20  {M.G.H.  Script.  III.  845). 

*  See  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  p.  121,  Hirsch-Bresslau,  Heinrich  II,  in.  26. 
5  Thietmar,  loc.  cit.  and  Rudolf's  diploma,  cited  above,  p.  15,  n.  3. 
8  See  above,  p.  13  and  n.  3  there. 


Henry   II  and  Otto-William  17 

matter  should  be  carried  through  without  his  advice'.  This  was  not  all; 
Otto-William's  benefices  were  all  ceded  to  the  Emperor  by  his  uncle, 
apparently  as  a  foretaste  of  the  succession  and  as  a  guarantee  of  it  as 
well,  not  of  course  in  fief,  for  the  Roman  Emperor  could  hold  of  no 
man,  but  in  dominion.  Henry  portioned  them  out  among  vassals  of  his 
own^ ;  and  promptly  made  a  nomination  to  a  bishopric  in  Otto-William's 
lands'.  There  only  remained  the  payment  of  the  necessary  bribes  to 
Rudolf  and  his  entourage.  This  was  done'*,  and  the  Burgundian  King 
left  for  home. 

It  was  now  Henry's  business  to  take  possession  of  the  lands  ceded 
by  his  uncle.  But  Otto-William  was  in  no  mood  to  surrender.  Henry's 
episcopal  nominee  barely  escaped  with  his  life.  The  Count  fortified 
and  held  the  north-Burgundian  towns,  and,  when  Henry  at  the  end  of 
June  came  to  Basel  at  the  head  of  an  army,  he  could  make  no  progress. 
In  vain  he  summoned  reinforcements  and  ravaged  the  open  country. 
No  town  could  be  taken,  though  it  seems  some  nobles  did  homage.  His 
presence  was  required  elsewhere;  Rudolf  was  wavering;  and  at  the  end 
of  August  he  abandoned  the  campaign  and  left  Burgundy  for  the  norths 

While  Henry's  warlike  measures  against  Otto-William  came  to  grief, 
his  diplomacy  received  a  severe  check  at  Rudolf's  court.  The  latter  on 
returning  south  made  an  attempt  to  carry  out  his  engagements,  but  it 
was  quickly  checked.  The  power  of  the  kingdom  lay  wholly  in  the 
hands  of  the  great  nobles,  and  they  refused  to  exchange  a  nominal 
master  for  one  with  force  at  his  back^  Racial  and  local  sentiment 
would  make  them  reluctant  to  be  ruled  by  a  foreigner  of  Teutonic 
tongue  and  the  lesser  nobles  would  sympathise  with  them.     To  this 

^  Thietmar,  loc.  cit.,  "  Omnem  namque  Burgundiae  regionis  primatum  per  manus 
ab  avunculo  suimet  accepit,  et  de  maximis  rebus  sine  eius  consilio  non  fiendis 
securitatem  firmam."  For  the  interpretation  see  Poupardin,  Botirgogne,  pp.  126-8,  and 
Hirsch-Bresslau,  Heinrich  II,  HI.  26,  n.  3.  Alpert  of  Metz,  ll.  14  {M.G.H.  iv.),  says, 
"regnum  imperatori  tradidit."  Possibly  this  refers  to  the  "securitatem  firmam"  and 
to  the  special  concessions  re  Otto-William's  benefices. 

"^  Thietmar,  loc.  cit.,  ''Dilectis  sibi  militibus  hoc  totum  dedit  in  beneficium,  quod 
sibi  ab  avunculo  suimet  tunc  est  concessum  et  quod  Willehelmus  Pictaviensis  (see 
above,  p.  16,  n.  2)  hactenus  habuit  regio  munere  praestitum."  This  is  not  quite  the 
view  of  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  p.  129,  who  considers  Henry  was  merely  authorized  to 
dispose  of  Otto- William's  domains.  Otto-William's  benefices  in  Burgundy  included 
of  course  the  four  or  five  counties  which  made  up  the  later  Franche  Comte. 

*  Probably  Besan9on;  see  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  p.  129,  n.  2. 

*  "  Cesar  autem  regi  et  contectali  eius  cunctisque  suimet  principibus  (so  Rudolf 
had  many  nobles  in  his  train)  ineffabilem  pecuniam  dedit,  et  firmata  iterum  antiqua 
iradicione,  eos  abire  permisit."     Thietmar,  VII.  20  {M.G.H.  Script.  HI.). 

*  See  Thietmar,  loc.  cit.,  Alpert  of  Metz,  11.  14,  and  Poupardin,  Bourgogne, 
pp.  131-2,   Ilirsch-Bresslau,  Heinrich  II,  in.  37-8. 

^  This  is  Thietmar's  account,  vii.  21  (M.G.H.  Script,  in.  845-6). 

P.  O.  2 


1 8      Humbert  Whitehands  in   Burgundian  politics 

skeleton  of  events  we  may,  but  with  slightly  less  certainty,  add  the  fact 
that  the  rebels  to  Rudolf's  authority,  i.e.  Otto-William  and  his  allies, 
sought  the  King  out  and  submitted  to  him,  but  on  the  condition  that 
the  treaty  of  Strasburg  was  annulled  and  a  foreign  heir  was  not  in- 
troduced. They  could  allege  a  legal  ground  for  their  plea,  that  the 
Burgundians  had  the  right  of  electing  their  King  \  which  was  no  doubt 
the  case.  Rudolf  consented — indeed  unless  he  left  the  kingdom  he 
could  hardly  act  otherwise — and  begged  Henry  to  renounce  his  treaty 
rights.  The  Emperor  too  had  little  choice;  he  possessed  hardly  any  of 
Burgundy;  so  he  agreed  to  some  kind  of  surrender'^. 

It  was  not  long  before  Rudolf  appeared  again  at  the  German  court. 
In  February  1018  he  came  to  Mayence,  and  again  subscribed  to  the 
treaty  of  10 16  with  the  consent  of  his  w4fe,  his  step-sons  and  his  nobles. 
This  time  he  even  handed  over  his  crown  and  sceptre  to  his  appointed 
heir  as  a  symbol  of  his  promise,  to  receive  them  back  of  course  after 
the  ceremony ^  The  oaths  were  renewed  as  well:  and  then  Rudolf 
turned  homewards  to  play  his  trivial  part.  On  his  side  the  Emperor 
again  prepared  to  take  possession  of  his  new  realm.  With  his  army  he 
marched  in  June  from  Basel  to  the  Rhone.  But  now  Rudolf  was  hostile; 
for  on  his  return  the  opponents  of  the  pro-German  policy  had  won  the 
upper  hand  at  his  court.  And  Henry  captured  no  town  and  obtained 
nothing.     By  September  he  was  back  at  Ziirich  profitless. 

The  ineffectual  Rudolf  cannot  have  gained  much  by  these  events. 
In  10 1 8  his  staunch  supporter,  Bishop  Henry  I  of  Lausanne,  to  whom 
in  accordance  with  his  usual  policy  he  himself  had  given  the  county  of 
Vaud*,  was  murdered,  although  the  King  was  able  to  get  his  bastard 
son  Hugh  appointed  to  succeeds     The  presence  of  this  son  with  the 

1  "  Unum  illud  specialiter  deprecari  ne  alterius  gentis  regem  super  populum  suum 
dominari  pateretur;  legem  hanc  perpetuam  Burgundionum  esse,  ut  hunc  regem 
haberent  quem  ipsi  eligerent  et  constituerent."  Alpert  of  Metz,  De  Div.  'Jetnp. 
II.   14.     {M.G.H.  Script,  iv.   717.) 

2  This  is  Alpert  of  Metz's  account,  De  Div.  Temp.  11.  14.  Some  doubt  is  cast  on 
his  details  by  his  saying  that  the  kingdom  was  given  over  to  Henry  II.  Still  this 
expression  was  not  so  very  inaccurate  for  the  combined  effect  of  the  oaths  of  homage, 
the  right  of  counsel  and  the  proposed  occupation  of  'Tranche  Comie."  See 
Poupardin,  Butirgogne,  pp.  132-3,  Hirsch-Bresslau,  Heinrich  II,  III.  38-9.  It  is  not 
at  all  clear  how  much  Henry  II  gave  up. 

3  See  Poupardin,  Boiirgogne,  pp.  \  33-5,  and  Heinrich  II,  iii.  78-Si  for  these  events. 
The  Humbertine-Anselmid  interest  may  have  taken  part ;  but  their  main  strength  lay 
south  of  the  Rhone,  so  we  cannot  conclude  either  pro  or  con  for  their  possible  policy. 
Henry  never  got  past  Otto-William  and  his  allies  who  dominated  Jurane  Burgundy. 

*  Charter  of  25  August  ion.  The  concession  of  rights  is  the  fullest  in  these 
charters,  M.D.R.  vii.  i.  One  may  note  Ermengarde,  Burchard  II  of  Lyons,  and 
Anselm  Bishop  of  Aosta,  were  three  of  the  four  councillors  advising  the  grant. 

®  See  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  p.  135,  n.  2,  and  p.  146. 


The  Anselmids  and   Humbertines  rise  in  power     19 

Emperor  at  the  dedication  of  Basel  Cathedral  on  the  nth  October  10 19 
ought  to  show  a  rapprochement  between  the  two  sovrans.  Yet  a 
border-war  was  going  on  between  the  Bishop  of  Strasburg  and  Otto- 
William  in   io2o\ 

The  little  we  know  of  Burgundy  in  the  succeeding  years  seems  to 
imply  a  decrease  of  Rudolf's  power,  and  with  it  of  the  resources  of  the 
monarchy.  To  begin  with,  a  new  pretender  to  the  succession  came  on 
the  scene.  This  was  Eudes  II,  Count  of  Tours,  son  of  Rudolf's  sister 
Bertha.  He  succeeded  to  the  county  of  Troyes  in  1021  and  probably 
commenced  his  agitation  in  Burgundy  about  then,  bribing  many  nobles 
to  adhere  to  him  and  usurping  some  of  his  uncle's  authority  ^ 

Then  further  progress  was  made  in  the  creation  of  episcopal  Counts. 
On  the  14th  September  1023  the  King,  with  Ermengarde's  assent, 
gave  her  county  of  Vienne  (not  that  of  Sermorens)  to  Burchard,  Arch- 
bishop of  Vienne,  and  his  successors  who  thus  possessed  the  entire 
fiscus  of  the  district*.  But  it  seems  that  the  supposed  grant  of  the 
county  of  Aosta  to  Bishop  Anselm  must  be  put  aside  with  the  spurious 
charter'*  which  seemed  to  show  it  had  taken  place.      In  any  case  by  the 

^  See  Poupardin,  Bourgogne.  pp.  135-6,  p.  138,  n.  3,  and  Hirsch-Bresslau, 
Heinrkh  II,   III.  82  and  85-6. 

-  That  Eudes  II  had  taken  this  course  before  Henry  II's  death  in  1024  is 
implied  by  Ralph  Glaber's  words  (ill.  9,  M.G.H.  Script,  vii.  64):  "  quoniam  regi 
Rodulfo,  avunculo  scilicet  eius,  non  erat  proles  ulla,  quae  foret  regni  heres,  prae- 
sumpsit  ipso  vivente,  vi  potius  quam  amore  regni  abenas  praeripere ;  conferens 
insuper  multa  donaria,  ut  ei  assensum  praeberent,  primoribus  patriae.  Sed  nequic- 
quain....Gens  enim  precipue  regni  eiusdem  assertionem  fidei  floccipendit  et  foedus  pro 
nihilo  ducit.  Extitit  igitur  post  mortem  Henrici  imperatoris...Chuonradus."  Perhaps 
the  rise  of  Eudes'  party  is  connected  with  the  conferment  of  the  county  of  Geneva 
on  Rudolf  Ill's  great-nephew,  Gerald  I,  c.  1020  (see  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  pp.  155 
and  267),  who  was  later  Eudes'  partizan. 

^  "  Letante  dilectissima  conjuge  mea  Irmingarda  regina,  dono...S.  Mauritio 
Ecclesiae  Viennensis  patrono  et  episcopis  eidem  ecclesiae  praetitulatis,  atque  deinceps 
in  curricula  seculorum  praeordinandis,  Viennensem  comitatum  cum  omnibus  ap- 
pendices suis  infra  ipsam  civitatem  Viennensem  et  extra  dictam  civitatem,  cum 
castello...Pupet,  et  quicquid  nostro  usui,  legis  censura,  per  manus  ministrorum 
nostrorum  nunc  usque  solvebat "  (quoted  in  Manteyer,  Paix,  p.  135,  from  I.  a 
Bosco,  Laevum  Xyston,  pp.  63-4,  and  in  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  p.  431,  from 
Hist,  de  France,  xi.  549). 

■•  See  the  demonstration  that  this  charter  (Besson,  Memoires  etc.,  ed.  1870, 
p.  472,  and  Schiaparelli,  /  diplomi  ital.  di  Lodovico  III  e  di  Rodolfo  II,  Fonti 
per  la  storia  d'ltalia,  p.  133)  is  a  fabrication  c.  1050,  by  Sig.  Schiaparelli  (loc.  cit. 
and  Arch.  stor.  ital.  Series  V.  xxxix.  (1907)  pp.  334-6).  He  points  out  that  the 
charter,  which  is  a  pseudo-original,  contains  undoubtedly  the  date  923,  although 
its  script  is  that  of  the  eleventh  century;  and  that  the  supposed  name  Katelmus, 
which  would  point  to  the  date  1023,  is  written  clearly  Ratelmus.  It  also  agrees 
with  Rudolf  II  of  Burgundy's  itinerary,  not  with  anything  known  of  Rudolf  Ill's. 
Sig.  \'2i\.\\xcco  {Miscellanea  Valdostana,  B.S.S.S.  xvii.  pp.  Ivii.,  Iviii.),  M.de  Manteyer 


20      Humbert  Whitehands  in   Burgundian  politics 

grant  of  the  Viennois  the  Anselmid  house  obtained  a  large,  if  temporary, 
increment  of  power.  Their  fortune  was  shared  in  by  the  Humbertines; 
for  Anselm's  nephew,  the  Humbertine  Burchard,  appears  about  this 
time  (perhaps  in  102 1)  as  Provost  of  St  Maurice  and  coadjutor  Bishop 
of  Aosta\  In  the  one  case  Anselm  himself,  in  the  other  Anselm's 
half-brother,  Burchard  II  of  Lyons,  was  his  superior'. 

Bishop  Anselm  of  Aosta  died  on  the  i6th  January  1026^  His 
nephew  Burchard  must  then  have  become  sole  bishop,  and  at  the  same 
time  we  find  the  county  in  the  possession  of  his  connection  Count 
Humbert  I  Whitehands,  the  ancestor  of  the  House  of  Savoy,  who  thus 


{Origines,  pp.  388-9,  467-8),  and  M.  Poupardin  (Boiirgogne,  pp.  43,  n.  4,  and  322) 
accept  the  charter  as  genuine,  and  correct  the  date  to  J  023.  Herr  Hellmann, 
Die  Grafen  von  Savoyen  tind  das  Reich,  p.  4,  accepts  the  charter  as  genuine,  and 
dates  it  923,  but  considers  Bishop  Ansehn  a  layman.  He  points  out  that  the  Bishop 
of  Aosta  in  the  twelfth  century  had  an  ancient  right  to  a  third  of  the  Count's 
profits  in  the  city,  "  tertiam  partem  tallearum  exactionum...in  ipsa  urbe  et  sub- 
urbis...ex  antiqua  consuetudine "  (Car.  Reg.  CCCLXXX.  M.H.P.  Chart.  I.  980). 
See  below,  pp.  90-1. 

^  Poupardin,  Botirgogne,  p.  320,  n.  2.  Burchard  the  younger  was  already  Provost 
in  1021  (Car.  Reg.  LXiii.  M.H.P.  Chart.  II.  114).  This  charter  also  makes  him 
Bishop  of  Aosta.  But  see  below,  pp.  49  and  60.  A  Burcardus  episcopus,  son  of 
a  Count  Humbert,  appears  in  a  charter  of  1022  (Car.  Reg.  Lii.  Cibrario  e  Promis, 
Doc.  p.  (97);  see  below,  pp.  47  and  ;8).  He  must  be  the  Bishop  of  Aosta  and 
already  appointed,  since  no  other  Bishop  Burchard  is  known  of  the  Humbertine 
family  and  translation  was  barely  possible.  The  theory  of  a  nickname  used  this 
once  seems  most  unlikely.  See  Carutti,  Ujnberto  I  Biancamano,  p.  87,  n.  i,  and 
cf.  Bresslau,  Konrad  II,  11.  64,  n.  i.  Then  in  1024  Burchard  acts  as  Bishop 
of  Aosta  in  a  charter  (Car.  Reg.  Lvii.  Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  (100))  which 
exchanges  some  episcopal  lands  (of  the  Canons  of  St  Ours)  for  other  lands  in  the 
Val  d' Aosta  with  a  certain  Katelmus.  Besides  the  evidence  of  Car.  Reg.  Lii.  that 
Burchard  had  already  attained  episcopal  rank  by  1022,  the  exactitude  of  three  out 
of  four  dates  in  Car.  Reg.  LVii.  for  1024  (day  of  week  and  month,  and  regnal 
year,  only  the  Indiction  being  out)  makes  one  reject  Patrucco's  {Misc.  Valdost., 
B.S.S.S.  XVII.  p.  Ixxiii.)  tempting  emendations  (changing  at  least  three  out  of  the 
four  dates),  which  would  bring  Car.  Reg.  LVII.  down  to  1026.  The  dating  formula 
runs:  "die  lunis,  xiiii.  Kal.  Nov.  regnante  Rodulpho  rege  anno  xxxii.  Ind.  11. 
feliciter";  i.e.  Monday,  19  Oct.  1024.  It  is  true  that  Rudolf's  father  and  pre- 
decessor Conrad  only  died  on  the  19th  Oct.  993  ;  but  Rudolf  may  well  have  been 
elected  before  that  event  (see  above,  p.  15,  n.  3).  The  Indiction  should  be  viii. 
Burchard,  Bishop  of  Aosta  and  Provost  of  St  Maurice  Agaune,  appears  also  with 
Burchard  II  of  Lyons  in  a  charter  of  1026  (Car.  Reg.  LXii.  M.H.P.  Chart,  i.  449). 
Cf.  for  his  life  Labruzzi,  U7t  figlio  di  Umbe/'io  Bianca»mno,  Arch.  st.  ital..  Series  v. 
Vol.  XVI.  and  below.  Section  vi. 

-  See  above,  p.   11,  n.   i. 

^  See  Obituary  of  St  Ours,  Aosta  {M.H.P.  Script.  III.  519),  "xvii.  Kal.  Febr. 
ob.  Anselmus  episcopus  Augustensis  qui  nostram  construxit  ecclesiam."  He  was 
at  the  Council  of  Anse  of  1025,  so  the  evidence  here  fits  together.  See  above, 
p.  10,  n.  4. 


The  Peace  of  God  21 

makes  his  first  incontestable  appearance  in  history^  It  has  been  held 
by  M.  G.  de  Manteyer  that  Count  Humbert  must  have  obtained  the  Val 
d'Aosta  by  enfeoffment  from  the  Bishop-Count  Anselm,  but  there  is  no 
trace  later  of  any  superiority  of  the  Bishops  of  Aosta  over  its  Counts. 
On  the  other  hand  Count  Humbert  was  certainly  suzerain  of  part  of  the 
bishop's  lands-,  and  in  the  twelfth  century  the  Counts  by  long  tradition 
took  the  bishops'  revenues  sede  vacante,  the  action  surely  of  a  feudal 
superior,  not  of  a  tenant  in  chivalry  ^  As  we  have  seen,  too,  the 
evidence  for  Anselm's  countship  has  broken  down. 

Meantime,  while  King  Rudolf  seems  to  have  abandoned  any 
attempt  to  rule  his  kingdom  and  to  have  contented  himself  with  aiding 
the  rise  of  those  powerful  families  which  were  his  personal  allies,  a 
serious  attempt  was  again  made  by  the  bishops  to  give  some  respite  from 
the  prevailing  anarchy  by  renewing  the  Peace  of  God.  A  synod  had 
been  held  at  Anse  in  the  Viennois  to  establish  it  in  mid-Burgundy  in 
994-5,  at  a  moment  when  Rudolf's  own  efforts  to  restore  the  royal 
authority  were  disastrously  failing.  That  was  thirty  years  before,  and  a 
new  generation  now  required  binding  to  a  modified  Peace.  Accord- 
ingly a  council  was  held  to  take  the  necessary  measures.  As  with  the 
first  Peace  established  in  994-5,  the  movement  was  not  a  local  one, 
for  all  south  and  central  France  was  implicated ;  nor  was  it  a  step 
taken  by  the  Kingdom  of  Burgundy  as  a  whole.  But  provincial  councils 
made  independent,  though  connected,  regulations.     The  earliest  of  the 

^  The  subscriptions  of  Car.  Reg.  LVii.  (cited  p.  20,  n.  i)  run  :  "  Signum  domnus 
Brocardus  episcopus,  qui  banc  commutacionem  fierit  et  manu  sua  firmavit,  et  ei 
rebctum  est.  Signum  domnus  Umbertus  comes  qui  banc  commutacionem  firmavit." 
Count  Humbert  must  intervene  as  feudal  superior  of  Katelmus  and  perbaps  of 
Burcbard  as  well.  That  this  Count  Humbert  of  Aosta  is  Count  Humbert  White- 
hands,  ancestor  of  the  Casa  Sabauda,  is  shown  specially  by  Car.  Heg.  cxx.  (Bollati, 
Misc.  star.  ital.  xvi.  635),  where  his  grandsons,  Oddo's  and  Adelaide's  sons,  appear 
as  ruling  the  valley  and  confirming  his  grant  (see  below,  p.  52,  n.  3);  by  his  Ardoinid 
daughter-in-law  Adelaide's  rule  of  the  county  (which  was  never  Ardoinid)  transmitted 
to  later  Savoyards  (see  below,  p.  230,  n.  i) ;  and  by  St  Anselm's  (b.  c.  1030  at  Aosta) 
statement  (Car.  ccxxxvii.  Migne,  CLix.  102)  that  his  father  and  mother  were 
vassals  of  Savoy.  Humbert's  Aostan  charters,  too,  form  a  series,  the  one  above 
(Car.  Reg.  LVii.  (1024)),  id.  Lix.  (1026),  id.  xc.  (1032),  id.  cxx.  (1040).  The 
argument  was  first  stated  by  Terraneo,  Dei  pritni  conti  di  Savoia  e  delta  loro  sig- 
noria  sulla  valle  d'Aosta,  Misc.  stor.  ital.  XVI.,  and  has  been,  I  think,  universally 
accepted. 

■■'  See  below,  p.  91,  n.   i. 

^  See  below,  Section  iv.  pp.  90-1.  The  earliest  diploma  giving  up  the  spolia 
of  the  Aostan  Bishops  is  of  1147  (Car.  Reg.  ccxcv.  M.H.P.  Chart,  i.  794).  The 
letters  of  St  Peter  Damian  (Car.  Reg.  CLVii.)  and  St  Anselm  (_id.  ccxxxvn.), 
mentioned  above,  also  corroborate  this  view.  For  Manteyer's  view  see  Origines, 
PP-  387-9.  Besides  the  charter  of  Bishop-Count  Anselm,  which  is  a  forgery,  there 
is  no  evidence  at  all  for  his  conclusion.     Cf.  below,  pp.   90-1. 


2  2       Humbert  Whitehands  in   Burgundian  politics 

second  series  of  these  assemblies  was  the  Council  of  Verdun-sur-le- 
Doubs,  which  adopted  regulations  for  the  borderland  of  France  and 
Burgundy \  Then  in  1025  in  the  preponderantly  Burgundian  Second 
Council  of  Anse,  presided  over  by  the  three  Archbishops  of  Lyons, 
Vienne  and  Tarentaise,  new  oaths  were  exacted  from  the  feudal  lords  of 
mid-Burgundy  ^  The  provisions  of  the  oath  which  have  come  down  to 
us  from  this  assembly  show  the  condition  of  the  land  better  than  any 
account  of  private  wars  could  do.  A  great  feudal  seigneur  promises  that 
he  will  not  attack  and  plunder  unprovoked  any  non-combatants,  clergy, 
merchants,  pilgrims,  serfs,  hunters  or  noblewomen^:  nor  will  he  shelter 
brigands,  especially  of  the  knightly  sort^  Even  an  unarmed  knight  was 
to  be  safe  from  the  beginning  of  Lent  to  the  octave  of  Easter^  Of 
course  in  his  demesne-lands  or  lands  which  were  held  of  him,  the  lord 
reserved  his  full  rights  of  tallage  and  the  like,  and  feudal  execution ^ 
Then,  the  actual  conduct  of  private  war  was  softened  by  regulations. 
The  presence  with  either  party  of  noblewomen,  clergy  and  widows  was  to 
be  a  bar  to  any  fighting  in  the  open  country:  houses  of  the  non-knightly 

^  See  Manteyer,  Paix,  pp.  102-3,  Poupardin,  Bourgog7ie,  pp.  304-5. 

-  That  the  Peace  of  God  was  reestablished  at  Anse  in  1025  is  made  highly 
probable  by  Manteyer,  Paix,  pp.  102-9.  The  only  document  we  have  is  the  oath  of 
some  great  Viennois  feudalist  (published,  op.  cit.  pp.  91-8)  to  keep  the  Peace  (see  text 
and  notes  below).  It  must  have  been  taken  before  1041,  as  there  is  no  reference 
in  it  to  the  Truce  of  God  (the  later  form  of  the  Peace)  which  was  introduced  into 
BurgTindy  at  Montriond  in  that  year  at  the  latest.  It  belongs  to  the  time  subse- 
quent to  Archbishop  Theobald  of  Vienne's  death  in  looi.  And  it  established  a 
30  years'  prescription  against  renewing  claims  of  possession  which  agrees  very  well 
with  the  30  years'  interval  between  the  two  Councils  of  Anse :  nor  does  there 
appear  to  have  been  any  other  south  Burgundian  Council  at  which  it  could  have 
been  taken. 

^  The  prescriptions  of  the  oath  are  not  in  a  very  logical  order.  They  were 
evidently  put  together  as  various  loopholes  in  the  earlier  oaths  were  found  out. 
For  the  above  statements,  the  most  salient  passages  (Manteyer,  0/.  cit.)  are:  "Clericum 
aut  monachum  non  portantem  arma  secularia  non  asaliam  nee  aprehendam,  neque 
ambulantes  cum  eis  sine  lancea  et  scuto,  nee  caballos  eorum  rapiam  (unless  it  was 
their  fault)  "  (pp.  91-2),  "  villanum  nee  villam  {sic)  vel  servientes  aut  mercatores 
non  aprehendam  nee  denarios  eorum  tollam  nee  redimere  eos  faciam  nee  suum  averum 
tollam  ut  perdant,  etc."  (92);  "  negociatorem  vel  peregrinum  non  asaliam  nee  res 
earum  {sic)  tollam  nisi  illorum  culpa  fuerit.  Venatores  nee  piscatores  nee  aucellatores 
non  aprehendam  nee  occidam  nee  res  eorum  tollam  "  (94).    For  women  see  p.  23,  n.  r. 

•*  "  Latronem  publicum  et  renominatum  non  consentiam  nee  eonducam  ilium  nee 
eius  latroeinium  me  sciente"  (93),  "  et  ei  meum  beneficium  tollam  si  facere  potuero 
etc."  (94). 

^  "A  capite  Jejunii  usque  clusa  Pascha  caballarium  non  portantem  arma  secularia 
non  asaliam  nee  substantiam  tollam  per  exforcium  quam  secum  duxerit "  (96). 

^  "  Spolia  villanorum  non  tollam  ut  perdant  in  drapis  et  ferramentis  nee  bestias 
eorum  tollam  nee  occidam,  nisi  in  illis  terris  que  mihi  pertinent"  (94);  "  Vineas 
alterius  non  vindemiabo,  neque  alterius  terram  messionabo,  nisi  in  illis  terris  que 
sunt  de  meo  alodo "  (96). 


Humbert  Whitehands  and  the  Peace  of  God      23 

classes  were  not  to  be  destroyed  unless  a  knight  at  feud  with  him  were 
within:  the  land  was  not  to  be  ravaged  unless  he  had  a  claim  to  its 
possession'.     Similar  rules  are  adopted  to-day  at  the  Hague. 

The  vivid  matter-of-fact  of  these  regulations,  so  naively  made, 
transports  us  back  almost  with  surprise  to  the  days  whose  picture  be- 
come heroic  is  to  be  found  in  so  many  a  chivalrous  epic  and  romance. 
Here  are  the  originals  of  Sir  Turquine  and  Rainaud  of  Montauban.  It 
requires  no  effort  to  discern  the  distressed  damosel  or  even  the  knight- 
errant,  for  how  easy  it  would  be  for  a  worthy  knight,  making  his 
pilgrimage,  as  William  V  of  Aquitaine  did  year  after  year,  to  achieve  a 
rescue  or  to  prevent  some  act  of  tyranny  to  the  traveller.  Complete 
anarchy  seems  to  reign  in  this  part  of  the  ruined  Carolingian  Empire, 
where  nothing  is  more  striking  than  the  permanent  state  of  war  which 
existed  among  the  members  of  the  knightly  class.  It  was  one  of  the 
most  beneficial  effects  of  the  feudal  tie  that  it  placed  large  numbers  of 
them  in  fixed  relations  of  mutual  alliance  and  thus  conferred  a  new 
strength  on  the  holders  of  the  decayed  piiblica  potestas.  And  if  the 
foreground  of  knight  and  baron  which  we  find  in  the  romances  is  here 
translated  into  reality,  so  does  the  background  too  appear.  Round  the 
villages,  along  the  roads,  up  the  mountain-sides  stretches  the  forest, 
wooded  or  treeless,  haunts  of  the  hunter  and  the  herdsman.  Therein 
the  thinly-peopled  villages,  scarcely  less  numerous  than  they  are  to-day, 
and  their  fields  and  vineyards,  are  strewn  like  islands;  and  to  the 
surrounding  waste  the  villein  looked  not  only  for  pasturage  and  fuel, 
but  for  protection  and  concealment.     His  life  was  forest-hemmed. 

We  have  a  special  interest  in  the  particular  oath  which  was  taken  at 
Ansa,  for  it  adds  further  details  which  seem  to  point  to  the  seigneur  in 
question  being  a  leading  member  of  the  Humbertines,  if  not  White- 
hands  himself.  The  territorial  limits  in  which  his  oath  was  to  take 
effect  were  the  county  and  the  diocese  of  Vienne,  the  county  and  the 
diocese  of  Belley,  the  rest  of  Bugey,  that  part  of  the  diocese  of 
Lyons  which  lay  on  the  left  of  the  Rhone,  and  the  county  of  Ser- 
morens".     Now   this   district,   as  will   l)e  seen   in   Section   iv.   of  this 

1  "  Nobiles  feminas  non  asaliam  neque  illos  qui  cum  eas  {sic)  ambulaverint 
sine  maritis  suis...et  si  ego  cum  nobili  femina  ambulavero  hominem  non  apprehendam 
nee  occidam  etc.  Similiter  et  cum  clericis  adlendam.  Similiter  et  de  viduis  adtendam  " 
(95).  "  Mansiones  non  incendam  nee  destruam  ex  toto  nisi  inimicum  meum  cabal- 
larium  aut  latronem  intus  invenero  etc....Vineas  non  truncabo  nee  saliceta  neque 
arbores  fructiferas  neque  flagellabo  neque  eradicabo  propter  werram,  nisi  in  ilia 
terra  que  recte  mea  debet  esse,  me  sciente  "  (93). 

*  "  Haec  omnia  suprascripta  adtendam  in  episcopatu  \iennensi  et  comitatu  et 
in  episcopatu  Belicensi  sive  comitatu  et  in  episcopatu  Lugdunensi  sicut  Rodanus 
currit  usque  ad  episcopatum  Viennense(m)  et  Belicense(m)  et  de  Ulevio  [Loyettes] 
usque  ad  Montem  Altreium  [Outriaz]  et  de  Monte  Altreio  et  Castellare  que  vocatur 


24       Humbert  Whitehands  in   Burgundian  politics 

chapter,  was  precisely  that  where  the  Humbertine  possessions  were 
most  thickly  scattered,  and  we  do  not  know  of  a  competing  family 
which  would  exactly  fall  within  its  boundaries ^  While  reserving, 
therefore,  the  discussion  as  to  the  nature  and  origin  of  these  Hum- 
bertine domains  till  later-,  we  may  note  at  present  the  great  power 
and  wealth  of  the  family  and  the  weakness  of  Rudolf  III.  Not  even 
service  in  the  King's  host  is  mentioned  as  excepted  from  the  Peace, 
although  to  enforce  the  Peace  service  was  definitely  allowed  under  the 
Bishop  ^ 

Before  the  Council  of  Anse  met,  the  Emperor  Henry  H  had  died 
on  the  13th  July  1024.  His  successor  was  a  distant  kinsman,  Conrad  H, 
the  Salic,  whose  election  in  September  begins  a  new  German  dynasty. 
Although  the  new  King  of  the  Romans  was  not,  like  his  predecessor, 
Rudolf  ni's  next  of  kin,  his  wife  Gisela  of  Swabia  was  niece  of  the 
Burgundian  King  through  her  mother  Gerberga ;  and  it  was  soon  seen 
that  Conrad  H  intended  to  use  the  relationship,  as  well  as  the  treaties 
of  1016  and  1018,  to  the  utmost.  He  had  good  reason  to  strive  for  the 
control  of  Burgundy,  for  the  Italian  nobles  were  largely  disaffected  to 
the  German  monarchy  and  c.  1025  obtained  the  consent  of  Duke 
William  V  of  Aquitaine  to  the  election  of  the  latter's  son  as  King 
of  Italy.  Now  William  V  was  related  both  to  Otto-William  of  "Franche 
Comte"  and  to  Eudes  of  Troyes,  who  headed  the  anti-German  party  in 
Burgundy,  and  he  began  negotiations,  certainly  with  Eudes  and  prob- 
ably with  Otto-William,  for  joint  action.  In  the  summer  of  1025  the 
Duke  himself  journeyed  to  Italy  to  ascertain  what  real  support  his  son 
might  gain  there'*. 

In  these  circumstances  a  complete  difference  of  opinion,  as  to  the 
import  of  the  treaties  of  toi6  and  1018,  appeared  between  the  German 

Dorcas  [Dorclies]  in  ista  parte,  sicut  aqua  Saveria  [Canal  de  Savieres]  est  que  Lacurios 
[Lavours]  exit  et  intrat  in  Rodanum,  et  Mcut  Munitus  [Mont  du  Chat]  est  et  Ladisia 
[R.  Leisse]  usque  ad  Scaias  [les  Echelles]  et  sicut  est  Kalesius  [Chalais]  et  Mons  S. 
Martini  [Mont  St  Martin]  usque  ad  .S.  Vincentium  [St  Vincent  du  Platre]  usque 
in  Isera,  et  Isera  currit  in  Rodanum,  et  comitatu  Salmoracensi  "  (Manteyer,  Paix, 
p.  97).  For  a  discussion  of  the  passage  and  the  tracing  of  the  eastern  border  from 
somewhere  near  Seyssel  down  by  the  Lac  du  Bourget  to  the  Isere  between  Grenoble 
and  Voiron,  see  Manteyer,  Paix,  pp.  1 10-23.  This  passage  rouses  a  suspicion  that 
the  county  of  Belley  may  have  been  larger  than  the  diocese  of  the  same  name 
and  thus  have  more  closely  corresponded  to  the  later  district  of  Bugey.  See  below, 
pp.  77  and  83. 

^  Cf.    Manteyer,  Paix,  pp.    124-5,  and   Poupardin,  Boiirgogne,  pp.   307-8. 

-  See  below,   Section  iv.  of  this  chapter. 

^  "  Teneo  excepto  per  hostem  quam  episcopus  fecerit  per  istam  pacem 
fractam  "  (97). 

*  See  for  all  this  Poupardin,  Boicrgogne,  pp.  136-7,  Bresslau,  Konrad  II,  i. 
73-9;  and  cf.  below.  Cap.  11.   Sect.  in.  pp.   174-5. 


Conrad   II   and   Eudes  of  Troyes  25 

and  Burgundian  Kings.  Conrad  II  held  that  on  Rudolf's  death  they 
guaranteed  the  union  of  the  Kingdom  of  Burgundy  with  the  Empire  in 
which  Germany  was  the  leading  state.  Just  in  the  same  way  he  claimed 
to  be  ruler  of  the  Italian  kingdom  immediately  on  his  German  election. 
The  new  title,  King  of  the  Romans,  instead  of  King  of  the  East-Franks 
and  the  like,  although  he  seldom  used  it,  expressed  in  fact  his  and 
Henry  II's  view  of  the  indissoluble  connection  of  the  Empire  and  Italy 
with  the  German  crown,  and  he  now  wished  (as  doubtless  Henry  II  had 
also  done)  to  establish  the  same  kind  of  union  between  the  German 
realm  and  Burgundy'.  Rudolf  III,  however,  considered  Henry  II 
merely  as  his  personal  heir,  duly  sanctioned  by  his  nobles;  and  looked 
on  Conrad  II  as  having  no  status  beyond  that  of  a  kinsman-by-marriage. 
This  does  not  mean  of  course  that  he  recognized  Count  Eudes'  pre- 
tensions, but  that  he  viewed  the  succession  as  an  open  question-. 

Conrad  II  soon  saw  there  was  need  and  opportunity  for  action.  On 
the  1 2th  May  1025  Bishop  Adalbero  of  Basel  died,  and  it  was  impor- 
tant to  secure  that  strategic  town,  the  northern  gate  of  Burgundy,  for  the 
Empire,  and  to  prevent  Eudes  and  Otto-William  putting  in  a  supporter 
of  their  own  as  Bishop.  Coming  from  Ziirich,  therefore,  where  he  had 
been  receiving  some  of  his  Italian  partizans,  Conrad  entered  Basel 
towards  the  end  of  June  with  a  large  force  and  reannexed  the  town. 
A  certain  Ulric  was  appointed  Bishop  by  a  frankly  simoniacal  transac- 
tion and  an  assembly  was  held,  partly  perhaps  in  sign  of  sovranty. 
But  Conrad  II  did  not  stop  there.  Before  departing  he  carefully 
garrisoned  the  frontier  district  of  Burgundy  in  spite  of  King  Rudolf's 
protests.  Thus  he  had  already  made  his  military  position  better  than 
Henry  IPs.  As  for  Rudolf,  the  death  of  Otto- William  (September 
1026)  freed  him  from  one  potent  influence;  and  his  niece  Gisela  also 
entered  into  negotiations  with  him  which  resulted  in  a  more  friendly 
attitude  on  his  part^ 

^  See  Bresslau,  A'onrad  II,  I.  82-4,  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  p.  137.  The  text 
is  Wipo,  Vita  Chuonradi  Imp.  {M.G.H.  Script,  xi.  264),  Cap.  viii.:  "Chuonradus 
autem  rex,  magis  augere  quam  minuere  regnum  intentus,  antecessoris  sui  labores 
metere  volens,  Basileam  sibi  subjugavit,  ut  animadverteret  si  rex  Ruodolfus  promissa 
attenderet."  The  "promissa"  are  the  treaties  with  Henry  II.  On  the  other  hand 
there  was  the  claim  of  kinship,  which  appears  in  a  rather  legendary  form  in  Hugo 
Flaviniacensis  {M.G.H.  Script,  viii.  364);  and  is  stated  by  the  Burgundian  chronicle 
of  Ralph  Glaber,  iv.  9  (M.G.H.  Script,  vn.),  "post  mortem  Ileinrici  Imp.  qui 
fuit  nepos  regis  Rodulfi,  Chuonradus. ..habens  in  conjugio  neptam  prefali  Rodulti ; 
ob  hoc  maxime  valenter  resistens  contradicebat  Odoni."  Cf.  iii.  v.  i.  Henry  III 
has  Kingdom  of  Burgundy  "quod  illi  a  progenitoribus  competebat." 

"^  Wipo,  Vita  Chuonradi  Imp.  vni.:  "defuncto  Imp.  Heinrico  Ruodolfus  rex 
promissa  sua  irrita  fieri  voluit." 

3  See  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  pp.  138-9,  Bresslau,  A'otirad  II,  i.  84-5.  The 
authority  is  chiefly  Wipo,    Vita  Chuonraiii  Imp.  viii.  {M.G.H.  Script,  xi.). 


26       Humbert  Whitehands  in   Burgundian  politics 

Nor  was  Conrad  less  successful  in  Italy.  William  V  returned 
disillusioned  from  his  journey  and  declined  to  engage  his  son  further  in 
the  business.  In  1026  Conrad  II,  entering  the  country,  received  the 
iron  crown  and  enforced  submission.  About  December  he  had  marched 
to  Ivrea  and  stormed  that  city^  It  was  while  he  celebrated  Christmas 
there  that  ambassadors  arrived  to  greet  him  from  Rudolf  III.  They 
brought  only  a  promise  on  the  latter's  behalf  to  attend  Conrad's  imperial 
coronation  at  Rome,  but  it  betokened  the  Burgundian  King's  change  of 
purpose-.  The  capture  of  Ivrea  must  have  been  an  object-lesson  to 
him ;  and  still  more  perhaps  to  the  Count  of  Aosta,  Humbert  White- 
hands,  who  saw  the  value  of  the  Great  St  Bernard  route  increasing,  and 
would  realize,  then  at  least,  if  not  before,  how  much  better  it  was  to  be 
a  well-rewarded  and  trusted  ally  than  a  vanquished  enemy.  The  Alpine 
passes  were  then  as  later  the  means  by  which  the  House  of  Savoy  rose 
to  greatness  ^ 

The  legends  of  the  later  Chroniques  narrate  that  Humbert  was 
present  at  an  imperial  coronation  and  there  received  the  county  of 
Maurienne''.  The  latter  statement  has  nothing  to  say  for  itself,  but 
we  may  well  believe  that  the  Count  accompanied  King  Rudolf  to 
Rome  for  the  Emperor  Conrad's  coronation  at  Easter,  26  March  1027^ 
At  any  rate  his  southern  neighbour,  Guigues  III  the  Old,  lord  of 
Graisivaudan  and  Albon,  ancestor  of  the  later  Dauphins,  and  Guigues' 
brother.  Bishop  Humbert  of  Valence,  were  at  Rome  for  the  ceremony* ; 
and  King  Canute,  who  took  advantage  of  his  meeting  with  the  Emperor 
and  King  Rudolf  to  obtain  promises  for  the  free  and  safe  passage  of 
the  Alps  by  English  and  Danish  pilgrims  and  merchants,  expressly 
mentions  in  his  account  the  assent  of  several  principes  to  his  de- 
mands. The  most  important  of  the  lesser  rulers  would  be  Humbert 
Whitehands,  Count  of  Aosta,  which  commanded  the  two  St  Bernards, 
and  perhaps  already  Count  of  Maurienne  and  therewith  master  of  the 
approach   to   the   Mont  Cenis'.     In  any  case,  if  the  tolls  over  those 

^  For  these  Italian  events  see  Bresslau,  Konrad  II,  i.  106-9,  ^'^^~^i-  The 
Ardoinids'  share  in  them  is  told  below,  Cap.  il.   Sect.  III.  pp.   171-8. 

2  See  Bresslau,  Konrad  II,  i.  135-6  and  201-2.  Presumably  about  this  time 
Rudolf  forced  Duke  Ernest  of  Swabia,  his  great-nephew  and  Conrad's  step-son, 
who  was  in  revolt  against  Conrad  and  had  seized  a  strong  position  near  Soleure 
as  a  base  of  operations,  to  leave  Burgundy. 

■*  Cf.  Hellmann,  Die  Grafen  von  Savoyen  u.  das  Reich,  pp.    14-15. 

^  Anciennes  Chroniques  de  Savoie,  M.H.P.  Script.   I.   81. 

°  Cf.  Bresslau,  op.  cit.  i.  139-48,  and  the  account  in  Wipo,  Vit.  Chiion.  Imp.  xvi. 
Gisela  was  crowned  Empress  on  the  same  day. 

^  See  Manteyer,  Paix,  pp.  144-5,  from  Bull  of  Pope  John  XIX,  28  March  1026 
{Cartulaire  de  Chiny,  No.  2798,  Jaffe,  Reg.  No.  3101);    cf.  Bresslau,  op.  cit.  i. 

^  William  of  Malmesbury,  Gesta  Rcgum  (Rolls  Series),  I.  222,  "  locutus  sum  igitur 
cum  ipso  imperatore  et  domino  papa  et  principibus  qui  ibi  erant  de  necessitatibus 


The  Alpine  tolls.      Treaty  with   Conrad   II        27 

passes  were  reduced,  he  must  have  been  charged  with  the  reduction 
on  the  Great  St  Bernard'. 

He  may  have  already  been  Count  of  Aosta  when  c.  1020  a  struggle 
had  taken  place  for  the  way  over  the  latter  pass.  About  that  year  a 
body  of  Normans  with  their  wives  and  children  came  to  the  defiles  on 
their  way  to  join  their  new-settled  kinsmen  in  Apulia.  These  hardy 
adventurers  refused  to  pay  the  tolls  demanded,  rushed  the  barrier,  slew 
the  guards,  and  proceeded  on  their  journey^.  It  must  have  been  an 
object-lesson  to  Humbert  Whitehands,  to  see  his  kinsmen's  officers — 
for  the  abbey  of  St  Maurice,  then  under  the  Anselmids,  owned  the 
valley  of  Entremont,  leading  up  to  the  Great  St  Bernard — routed  and 
killed.  He  would  doubtless  perceive  that  a  gentler  use  of  their  rights 
would  be  more  successful. 

Soon  both  Emperor  and  King  Rudolf  had  returned  to  their 
northern  homes.  Conrad  was  busy  in  suppressing  Swabian  rebels^  and 
in  the  course  of  his  operations  was  led  to  Zurich  about  mid-August 
1027.  Thence  he  proceeded  to  Muttenz,  just  south  of  Basel,  where  he 
met  Rudolf  HI,  and  the  two  monarchs  entered  Basel  itself  together. 
The  Empress  Gisela  was  again  the  mediatress  :  and  the  result  of  their 
conferences  was  the  formal  renewal  of  the  treaties  of  1016-18,  this  time 
in  favour  of  Conrad  H.  His  son  and  heir-designate,  the  later  Henry  HI, 
was  explicitly  included  ;  thus  the  danger  of  the  treaty  lapsing  in  case 
the  Emperor  should  predecease  Rudolf  was  avoided  and  the  hereditary 
descent  of  the  crown  was  confirmed.  With  the  usual  bribes  Rudolf  HI 
then  left  for  his  kingdom'*. 

totius  populi  mei,  tarn  Angli  quam  Dani,  ut  eis  concederetur  lex  aequior  et  pax 
securior  in  via  Romam  adeundi  et  ne  tot  clausuris  per  viam  arctentur  et  propter 
injustum  tiieloneum  fatigentur.  Annuitque  postulatis  imperator  et  Rodulfusirex  qui 
maxime  ipsarum  clausurarum  dominatur  cunctique  principes  edictum  firmarunt,  ut 
homines  mei,  tam  mercatores  quam  alii  orandi  gratia  viatores  absque  omni  angaria 

clausurarum  et  theloneorum  cum  firma  pace  Romam  eant  et  redeant Cuncta  enim 

quae  a  domino  papa  et  ab  imperatore  et  a  rege  Rodulfo  ceterisque  principibus  per 
quorum  terras  nobis  transitus  est  ad  Romam,  pro  meae  gentis  ulilitate  postulabam, 
libenter  annuerunt  et  concessa  etiam  sacramento  firmaverunt."  The  clausiirae  are  the 
tolls  at  the  defiles  at  the  mouth  of  a  pass,  e.g.  at  Bard  in  Val  d'Aosta  and  at 
S.  Michele  della  Chiiisa  in  the  Valle  di  Susa. 

^  For  the  special  importance  of  the  Mont  Cenis  and  the  Great  St  Bernard  in  the 
Middle  Ages,  cf.  Coolidge,  Alps  in  Nature  and  History,  pp.  164-9. 

2  See  Radulph  Glaber,  III.  i  (M.G.H.  Script,  vii.  63)  :  "  Egredientes  (Normanni) 
satis  audacter,  venerunt  ad  loca  Alpium,  qui  et  mons  Jovis  dicitur,  ubi  etiam  in 
angustissimis  semitis  praepotentes  regionis  illius  constituerant,  imperante  cupiditate, 
seras  et  custodes  ad  pretia  transmeantium  exigenda.  At  illi  cum  denegassent  eis 
transitum,  requisite  primitus  ex  more  pretio,  indignatus  Normannorum  exercitus, 
confractis  seris  caesisque  custodibus,  per  vim  transitum  fecerunt." 

*  That  is  Duke  Ernest  of  Swabia  and  his  adherents.     See  above,  p.  26,  n.  2. 

■•  See  Poupardin,  Boiirgogne,  p^.  141-3,  Bresslau,  A77«ra<///,  I.  221-2.    Authority 


28       Humbert  Whitehands  in   Burgundian  politics 

The  old  King's  position  does  not  seem  to  have  become  any  happier 
in  his  last  years.  Eudes  of  Champagne,  and  Rainald  I,  son  and  suc- 
cessor in  "  Tranche  Comte  "  of  Otto-William,  were  openly  preparing  to 
contest  the  claims  of  Conrad  II'  :  he  also  lost  two  of  his  wonted  sup- 
ports;  for  his  brother  Burchard  II  of  Lyons  died  on  the  22nd  June 
1030  or  1031^,  and  the  latter's  half-brother,  the  Anselmid  Burchard  of 
Vienne,  on  the  20th  August  1031^  Burchard  of  Vienne's  place  was 
suppUed  by  Leger,  who  was  clearly  on  good  terms  with  the  King  and 
Queen'';  but  Lyons  was  seized  on  by  the  Humbertine  Bishop  Burchard 
of  Aosta'.  The  latter  perhaps  was  favoured  by  Rudolf  and  his  rela- 
tives, but  his  bad  character  made  him  a  most  unsatisfactory  substitute 
for  Burchard  II.     Then  his  translation  from  one  see  and  province  to 

Wipo,  Vita  Chuon.  Imp.  xxi.,  "  Confirmata  inter  eos  pace,  Gisela  imperatrice  haec 
omnia  mediante,  regnoque  Burgundiae  imperatori  tradito  eodem  paclo  quemadmodum 
prius  antecessori  suo  Heinrico  imperatori  datum  fuerat,  rex  iterum  donis  ampliatus, 
cum  suis  reversus  est  in  Burgundiam,"  and  id.  xxix.,  "regnum  Burgundiae  Chuonrado 
imp.  et  filio  eius  Heinrico  regi  a  Ruodolfo  rege,  postquam  ipse  superstes  non  esset, 
per  jusjurandum  jamdudum  confirmatum  esset."  For  tiie  hereditary  character  of 
Henry  Hi's  nomination  see  p.   25,  n.   x,  above. 

^  See  above,  p.  19. 

2  Manteyer,  Origines,  pp.  470-3,  and  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  p.  156,  n.  i. 

^  Manteyer,  Origines,  pp.  465-6,  and  Paix,  p.  132. 

*  See  Bresslau,  Konrad  II,  11.  53.  Leger  appears  as  a  royal  councillor  in  Car. 
Reg.  Lxxxiii.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  4),  Lxxxiv.  (Cartulaire  de  Savigny,  ed. 
Bernard,  I.  318)  and  in  several  charters  of  Ermengarde  after  Rudolf's  death,  Car. 
Reg.  XCII.  (Chevalier,  Carttil.  St  Andr^-le-bas,  p.  172),  XCIII.  (id.  p.  185),  CVI. 
(Carutti,  Umberto  I  Biaiicamano ,  p.  193),  CXLIX.  [Cartul.  de  Grenoble,  ed.  Marion, 
p.  99). 

*  I  follow  Bresslau,  Konrad II,  11.  55-8,  and  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  pp.  156-7.  Cf. 
Labruzzi,  Un  figlio  di  Umberto  Biancamano,  Arch.  stor.  ital.,  S.  V.  Vol.  xvi.  The  text 
is:  Ralph  Glaber,  v.  <:^{M.G.H.  Script,  vii.  70):  "  Fuit  igitur  in  suprataxatis  diebus 
dissensio  permaxima  post  mortem  Burcardi  archipraesulis  Lugdunensis  de  praesulatu 
ipsius  sedis,  quam  plures  non  justis  appetebant  meritis,  sed  instinctu  superbae  elationis. 
Primus  omnium  praedicti  Burcardi  nepos,  eiusdem  aequivocus,  supramodum  super- 
bissimus,  relicta  sede  propria  Augustanae  civitatis,  procaciter  Lugdunensem  arripuit. 
(Qui  post  multas  perpetratas  nequicias  captus  a  militibus  imperatoris,  perpetuo  est 
condemnatus  exilio.)  Post  ipsum  vero  quidam  comes  Geraidus  {al.  Girardus)  suum 
filium  puerulum  quendam  arroganter  ibidem  sola  praesumtione  auctore  substituit,  et 
ipse  post  modicum,  non  ut  pastor  ovium,  sed  veluti  mercennarius,  in  fugam  versus 
delituit. "  Then  follows  the  Pope's  election  of  Odilo  and  the  latter's  refusal.  Bresslau 
{lac.  cit.)  pointed  out  that  the  capture  of  Burchard  HI  by  the  Emperor  must  be  told 
in  parenthesis,  as  it  occurred  in  1036  and  the  refusal  of  Odilo  had  taken  place  by 
1033,  i'^  which  year  Pope  John  XIX  died.  A  Bull  of  the  latter  reproving  the  Abbot 
for  his  refusal  exists  (Migne,  CXLI.  1150,  Jaffe,  4095).  Herimann.  Augiensis,  too, 
gives  a  bad  character  of  Burchard  HI  {M.G.H.  Script,  v.  121),  1034,  "  Lugdunensem 
archiepiscopum  Burghardum,  hominem  genere  nobilem  et  strennuum,  sed  per  omnia 
scelestum  et  sacrilegum,"  and  1036,  "  Burghardus  Lugdunensis  archiepiscopus,  immo 
tyrannus  et  sacrilegus,  aecclesiarum  depraedator,  adulterque  incestuosus."  Without 
defending  Burchard,  one  may  possibly  attribute  the  last  phrase  to  his  being  married. 


Humbertine   Bishops  29 

others  would  give  offence  and  loosen  his  hold  on  his  clergy.  A  dispute 
for  the  see  began  at  once ;  a  Count  Gerald  intruded  a  boy-son  of  his 
for  a  while,  but  was,  it  seems,  driven  out  by  Burchard  III.  The  Pope 
John  XIX  was  induced  to  intervene,  and  nominated  a  leader  of  the 
Church,  Abbot  Odilo  of  Cluny ;  but  the  great  Abbot  refused  the  spe- 
cious honour,  and  Burchard  III  was  left  in  possession. 

Burchard  III  does  not  seem  to  have  been  succeeded  by  a  Humber- 
tine in  Aosta^  but  about  this  time  two  other  members  of  the  family 
obtained  bishoprics.  One  was  Aymon,  son  of  Amadeus,  who  appears 
in  1032  as  Bishop  of  Belley  and  continues  in  office  till  c.  1055 -.  The 
other  was  a  second  Aymon,  Bishop  of  Sion,  son  of  Humbert  White- 
hands,  who  first  appears  as  Bishop  in  1037  and  died  in  July  105 4 1 
His  appointment  however  is  likely  to  be  later  than  1034''. 

The  last  important  acts  of  Rudolf  III  testify  to  the  alliance  of  his 
Queen  with  the  Humbertines.  He  had  already  given  the  villa  of 
Talloires  and  its  churches  on  the  Lake  of  Annecy  to  the  abbey  of 
Savigny''.     Now  in  103 1-2  a  fresh  gift  was  made  by  the  Queen  to  the 

^  A  certain  Guigo  or  Gigo  appears  perhaps  in  1034.  See  Savio,  Gli  antichi 
vescovi,  p.  89. 

■■'  See  Cartulaire  de  Cluny,  iv.  78  and  79  (1032),  Car.  Keg.  cxiii.  {Cartulaire 
de  Rommts,  ed.  Giraud,  Preuves,  i.  68-9)  (1037),  Car.  Reg.  CXLi.  (Guigue,  Petit 
Cartulaire  de  St  Sulpice  en  Bugey,  p.  26)  (?  1055).  The  latter,  combined  with  Car. 
Reg.  cxxxviii.  (Guigue,  op.  cit.  p.  26),  shows  his  father  to  have  been  Amadeus,  Count 
of  Belley  ;  concerning  whom  see  below,  Section  ill. 

^  He  appears  as  Bishop,  Car.  Reg.  cxiii.  (Cartulaire  de  Rovians,  ed.  Giraud, 
Preuves,  I.  68-9)  (1037),  Car.  Reg.  cxx.  (Misc.  di  Storia  ital.  xvi.  635)  (1040), 
Car.  Reg.  cxxiii.  (Marion,  Cartulaire  de  Grenoble,  p.  31)  (1042),  Car.  Reg.  cxxvii. 
(Dunod,  Histoire  de  PEglise  de  Besatifon,  Vol.  i.  Preuves,  p.  xlix.)  (1044),  Gremaud, 
M.D.R.  xviii.  338  (1043),  Car.  Reg.  cxxxi.  {M.H.P.  Chart.  11.  142)  (1046),  Car. 
Reg.  cxxxv.  (Chevalier,  Cartulaire  de  St  Andre-le-bas,  p.  156),  Car.  Reg.  CXLII. 
{M.H.P.  Chart.  11.  148)  (1050),  Car.  Reg.  CXLV.  (Gremaud,  M.D.R.  xviii.  340) 
(1052),  Gremaud,  M.D.R.  xviil.  346  (?),  Car.  Reg.  CXLVI.  (Mabillon,  Annalcs 
Ord.  S.  Benedicti,  iv.  App.  p.  742)  (1053),  Car.  Reg.  CXLVII.  (Gremaud,  M.D.R. 
xvni.  338)  (1054),  and  Car.  Reg.  cxLVin.  (Gremaud,  Necrol.  Sedun,  M.D.R.  xviii. 
276).  He  was  buried  13  July  1054.  He  appears  too  as  Provost  of  St  Maurice  in 
1046  (Car.  Reg.  cxxxi.  M.H.P.  Chart.  11.  142),  Abbot  in  1050  (Car.  Reg.  CXLII. 
M.H.P.  Chart,  n.  148).  The  mention  of  him  as  Abbot  in  1037  is  due  to  a  mistake  in 
Gallia  Christiana  (Car.  Reg.  CXIII.),  where  the  real  text  is,  "  Sedunensis  episcopus 
atque  Octodurensis  "  (Giraud,  Cartulaire  de  Romans,  ed.  I.  I'reuves,  I.  68-74),  which 
must  mean  merely  all  the  Vallais  (Emmo  of  Tarentaise  calls  himself  "Centronorum 
et  Darantasiensium  "  just  before).  The  see  had  been  shifted  once  or  twice  (see 
Gams,  p.  312). 

*  Else  Count  Humbert  would  hardly  have  needed  to  go  round  by  Italy  to  reach 
Zurich  in  that  year;  see  below,  pp.  32-3.  Bui  Eudes'  conquest  of  the  Vallais  and 
Aosta  (below,  p.  30,  n.  4)  may  sufficiently  account  for  the  detour. 

•'  Car.  Reg.  XLix.  {Cartulaire  de  Savigny,  ed.  Bernard,  I.  317),  "  petitiones 
Irmengardis  reginae, ...Burchardi  archiepiscopi  Lugdunensis  fratris  nostri  et  Burchardi 
Viennensis  archiepiscopi."     Iterius  was  Abbot. 


30      Humbert  Whitehands  in   Burgundian  politics 

new  abbey  of  Talloires  (subject  to  Savigny)  by  the  counsel  of  four 
Bishops,  with  whom  only  one  layman  is  named,  viz.  Count  Humbert, 
who  can  scarcely  be  other  than  Whitehands  in  view  of  his  later  connec- 
tion with  the  Queen \ 

Rudolf  III  did  not  long  survive  the  foundation  of  Talloires.  On 
the  6th  September  1032  he  died  and  was  buried  at  Lausanne^  His 
death  gave  the  signal  for  war.  The  Emperor  Conrad  H  was  away 
warring  in  Poland,  and,  though  the  dying  King  had  sent  him  his  crown 
and  insignia^,  could  take  no  immediate  steps  to  enter  his  destined  king- 
dom. This  gave  his  chance  to  Count  Eudes.  He  at  once  entered 
Burgundy,  claiming  the  succession  or  perhaps  only  the  royal  domains  at 
first.  In  any  case  he  took  possession  of  the  latter  by  force  or  negotia- 
tion as  far  as  the  Great  St  Bernard,  fortifying  especially  Neuchatel 
and  Morat.  He  could  hardly  have  got  so  far  without  the  alliance  of 
Count  Rainald  I  of  "  Franche  Comte."  Other  supporters  were  Gerard, 
Count  of  the  Genevois,  and  the  truculent  Humbertine  Burchard  III  of 
Lyons.  But  here  his  easy  success  stopped.  Leger  of  Vienne  showed 
no  zeal  for  him :  and  it  seems  likely  that  Queen  Ermengarde  withdrew 
to  her  dower-lands  in  Sermorens  and  Savoy,  there  to  plan  with  Count 
Humbert  Whitehands,  probably  already  her  advocate,  measures  in 
favour  of  Conrad's  succession'*. 

^  Car.  Reg.  Lxxxiv.  (Bernard,  Cajiiiljit-e  de  Savigny,  I.  318).  Archbishops  Leger 
and  Emmo  of  Tarentaise  were  two  of  the  prelates. 

-  Poupardin,  Botirgogne,  p.  144. 

^  See  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  pp.  148-9,  Konrad  II,  II.  9-10. 

*  For  Eudes'  measures  see  Bresslau,  Konrad  II,  11.  13-15,  Vow^'s.x^m,  Bourgogne, 
pp.  15 1-8.  With  regard  to  his  adherents,  he  could  hardly  have  made  the  intra-Jurane 
land  his  centre  of  operations  without  Rainald's  support  as  mentioned  in  the  text. 
Gerard  and  Burchard  III  submitted  to  Conrad  II  in  1034.  In  view  of  Burchard  Ill's 
(who  was  Provost  of  St  Maurice)  adhesion,  we  may  accept  Hugh  of  Flavigny's 
statement  (sub  anno  1037,  M.G.H.  Script.  Vlil.  401),  "  optinuitque  (Odo)  civitates 
et  castella  usque  ad  Jurum  et  Montem  Jovis."  Wipo  (xxix.  M.G.H.  Script. 
XI.  269)  merely  says,  "magnam  partem  Burgundiae  distraxit."  Does  Baldric 
(1050- [  130),  Cannina  Historica  (quoted  M.D.R.  XXIX.  60,  and  Bresslau,  Konrad  II, 
II.  no,  n.  4,  cf.  Molinier,  Sources,  il.  207-8),  refer  to  Eudes'  conquests  in  1032  in 
his  reference  to  him  ? 

"  Addidit  Octodurum  (Martigny  in  the  Vallais)  sibi  scilicet  unus  eorum  (Odonuni), 
Augustamque  suis  viribus  (text  has  juribus)  obtinuit. 
Isque  Theoh)aldum  generavit  pacis  alumnum, 
Quo,   Philippe,  venis  principe  progenitus." 
According  to  this  Eudes  would  conquer  Aosta  for  the  time  from  Humbert.     But  the 
latter  had  recovered  it  by  1034  (see  below,  p.  33,  n.  i,  and  p.  35,  n.  i).     As  to  the 
opposition,  Ermengarde  and  Humbert  joined  Conrad  II  at  Zurich  early  in  1033  (see 
below).     We  find  the  Queen  making  two  small  grants  by  Leger's  advice  about  this 
time  (Car.  Reg.  xcil.,  xciii.  Chevalier,  Carlul.  St  Andri-k-bas,  pp.  172,  185)  which 
agrees  with  the  latter's  reluctance  to  recognize  Eudes  (see  below).     Humbert  only 


Whitehands  leads  the  pro-German  party  31 

It  may  seem  too  purely  speculative  to  discuss  the  possible  motives 
of  Humbert  Whitehands  in  joining  or  rather  heading  the  Imperial  party; 
knowledge  of  his  private  feuds  and  circumstances  is  wanting  to  us. 
Still  there  are  some  general  considerations  which  cast  a  little  light  upon 
them.  To  begin  with,  Eudes  after  all  was  not  a  Burgundian.  This 
consideration  does  not  carry  much  weight  at  the  period  and  I  should 
not  mention  it  had  not  the  Burgundian  grandees  raised  the  national 
question  to  Rudolf  III  in  1016^;  still  it  was  there.  Far  more 
important  was  Conrad's  subjugation  of  Ivrea  in  1026.  That  and  the 
firm  establishment  of  the  Germanic  Empire  in  Piedmont  must  have 
appealed  to  the  Count  of  Aosta  (and  perhaps  of  Maurienne  too)  no  less 
than  to  Rudolf  III.  Conrad,  unlike  Henry  II,  held  Burgundy  in  a 
vice.  And  at  this  point  I  think  we  may  credit  Humbert  with  rather 
wider  views.  He  can  hardly  have  been  blind  to  the  unique  position 
his  house  was  gaining  on  the  Alpine  chain.  Along  the  counties  he  con- 
trolled ran  the  main  routes  of  war  and  religion  and  trade  from  France, 
from  England  and  the  Rhineland  towards  Rome,  the  centre  of  the 
world.  For  the  due  exploitation  of  his  position  friendly  relations  with 
the  master  of  North  Italy  and  a  secure  state  of  things  there  were 
essential.  There  were  many  ways  to  the  Alpine  defiles  from  the  north 
— Eudes'  hostility  would  mean  little ;  but  few  led  from  them  south  over 
the  unbroken  Lombard  plain.  With  this  would  be  linked  the  profit  of 
the  Imperial  alliance.  The  Great  St  Bernard  was  a  most  important 
strategic  point  for  the  Emperors  to  control.  By  it  they  could  take 
Lombardy  between  two  fires  in  lieu  of  merely  attacking  by  the  North- 
East  and  the  Brenner.  A  faithful  ally  might  expect  to  be  cherished 
and  to  receive  a  series  of  rewards.  If  Humbert  was  not  already  Count 
of  Maurienne,  it  is  possible  as  we  shall  see  that  the  accjuisition  of  that 
valley  and  of  the  approach  to  the  Mont  Cenis  was  a  firstfruits  of  his 
alliance  with  Conrad  II.  The  Emperor  would  then  be  already  concen- 
trating the  control  of  the  passes  in  trusty  hands  ;  and  in  any  case  we 
shall  find  that  the  aggrandisement  of,  and  a  strict  alliance  with,  the 
Humbertines  was  a  cardinal  point  of  the  Emperor  Henry  Ill's  Alpine 
policy  ^ 

To  return  to  Eudes.  Though  the  intra-Jurane  districts  of  Romance 
tongue  joined  him,  he  does  not  seem  to  have  gained  any  success  in  the 
German-speaking  north-east  corner  of  Burgundy^;  and  we  next  find 

actually  ajipears  as  Ermengarde's  advocate  in  c.  1039  (Car.  J\eg.  xci.  Carttil.  de  Cluny, 
IV.  95,  cf.  Manteyer,  Origines,  pp.  397-8). 

'  See  above  p.  18,  n.  i. 

*  See  below,  Cap.  II.  Sect.  iv.  pp.  216-17,  221-2. 

•'  I  gather  this  from  Conrad's  election  at  Payerne,  where  none  of  his  southern 
supporters  could  come.  German  Burgundy  lay  between  Fribourg  and  the  river 
Reuss. 


32       Humbert  Whitehands  in   Burgunclian  politics 

him  working  down  the  Rhone.  Here  he  besieged  Archbishop  Leger  in 
Vienne.  The  latter  was  compelled  to  make  a  treaty,  by  which  within 
some  unmentioned  term  Eudes  should  be  elected  and  crowned  King  in 
the  city\  It  is  something  of  a  puzzle  why  Eudes  was  not  yet  elected 
and  crowned.  He  himself  seems  to  have  spoken  at  first  equivocally  of 
his  ambitions.  Then  Conrad  had  of  course  the  crown  and  insignia. 
Perhaps  the  real  reason  was  that  the  magnates  would  only  elect  a  King 
with  overwhelming  force  to  back  him^ 

Meantime  Conrad  H,  set  free  from  his  Polish  entanglement,  made 
all  the  speed  he  might  to  prosecute  his  claims.  Christmas  he  kept  with 
his  son  Henry  III  at  Strasburg.  In  January  1033  he  marched  with  his 
army  in  spite  of  the  exceptionally  severe  winter  into  Burgundy  via 
Soleure.  The  time  chosen  for  his  campaign  was  very  novel,  but  Eudes 
had  to  be  checked  and  his  election  forestalled.  On  the  2nd  February 
1033  Conrad  held  an  assembly  at  the  abbey  of  Payerne.  We  may 
suppose  the  German-speaking  Burgundian  nobility  attended.  There 
the  Emperor  was  formally  elected  and  crowned  King  of  Burgundy. 
This  did  not  mean  much,  but  it  gave  him  the  start  of  Eudes.  Burgun- 
dian customs  on  the  accession  of  their  Kings  were  at  least  observed  in 
name.     He  could  now  claim  allegiance  legally^. 

The  next  movement  of  the  new-crowned  Emperor-King  was  to 
attempt  the  expulsion  of  his  rival  from  the  intra-Jurane  lands,  that  is 
from  the  chief  remnant  of  the  royal  domains.  Herein,  however, 
Conrad  II  had  little  success.  We  are  told  of  no  castle  he  took  :  we 
know  that  his  army  suffered  terribly  from  the  extraordinarily  bitter 
season  at  the  vain  siege  of  Morat.  The  Emperor  found  himself  com- 
pelled to  beat  a  retreat  to  Ziirich,  presumably  towards  the  end  of 
March  ^ 

At  Ziirich  he  met  his  partizans  from  southern  Burgundy  headed  by 
Queen  Ermengarde  and  Count  Humbert.  They  had  been  unable  to 
reach  him  by  the  direct  route,  another  sign  that  Eudes  held  the  Vallais 

^  See  Bresslau,  Kotirad  II,  11.  16-17,  and  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,-p-p.  158-9,  both 
based  on  Hugh  of  Flavigny,  Chron.  Virdunense,  s.  a.  1037  {AI.G.H.  Script,  viii. 
401). 

*  See  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  pp.  153-9. 

^  See  Bresslau,  A owrarf //,  II.  69-70,  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  pp.  159-60.  Wipo's 
{M.G.H.  Script,  xi.  p.  270,  Cap.  xxx.)  account  runs:  "  Et  veniens  ad  Paterniacum 
monasterium,  in  purificatione  S.  Mariae  a  maioribus  et  minoribus  regni  ad  regendam 
Burgundiam  electus  est;  et  in  ipsa  die...coronatus  est."  It  is  clear,  from  subsequent 
events,  that  only  the  seigneurs  between  Neuchatel  and  the  Gern:ian  frontier  could  have 
attended. 

*  Bresslau,  Konrad II,  11.  71,  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  p.  161;  the  authorities  are: 
Wipo,  Cap.  XXX.,  Ann.  Sangallenses,  1033  [AI.G.H.  Script,  i.  83),  Herimann. 
Augiensis,   1033  {M.G.H.  Script,  v.   121). 


The  war  of  succession  t,^ 

and  all  Vaud  as  well  as  Geneva.  But  they  crossed  into  Italy  either  by 
the  Little  St  Bernard  or  the  Mont  Cenis,  and  came  up  to  Zurich  by 
one  of  the  easterly  passes.  There  they  took  the  oath  of  fealty  both  to 
Conrad  II  and  his  son,  and  loaded  with  bribes  returned  by  the  way 
they  earned     Thus  Humbert  remained  firm  in  his  pro-German  policy. 

Conrad,  however,  appears  to  have  been  discouraged  by  the  poor 
result  of  his  campaign,  and  resolved  to  try  new  measures.  By  the  22nd 
April  1033  he  was  at  Nijmegen  on  the  Lower  Rhine.  There  a  treaty  of 
alliance  was  negotiated  with  Henry  I  of  France,  which  was  completed 
at  the  end  of  May  in  a  personal  interview  at  Deville  on  the  Meuse. 
Both  monarchs  had  Eudes  for  an  enemy,  for  he  had  supported  the 
claims  of  Henry  I's  younger  brother  to  the  French  crown.  So  we  may 
assume  Conrad  II  was  now  given  a  free  hand  by  his  ally  to  invade 
Eudes'  French  fiefs.  At  the  same  time  he  now  knew  his  Burgundian 
plans  would  be  morally  supported  by  Henry  I-. 

But  Conrad's  chief  difficulties  arose  from  the  vastness  of  the  Empire. 
Called  off  to  his  eastern  frontier  again,  he  left  the  field  clear  for  a 
ravaging  incursion  of  Eudes  into  Upper  Lorraine^.  Then  Conrad 
retaliated  by  a  similar,  but  severer,  invasion  of  Champagne  about  the 
end  of  August.  Eudes  was  reduced  to  such  straits  that  he  submitted 
and  promised  to  surrender  his  claims  in  Burgundy.  Hostages  were 
given  by  him,  and  the  over-busied  Emperor  was  forced  anew  to  depart 
to  his  Slavonic  border \  But  Eudes  did  not  keep  his  word.  He  held 
to  the  land  he  had  seized  in  Burgundy  ;  and  recommenced  his  ravages 
in  Lorraine.     Conrad  II  saw  a  great  effort  would  have  to  be  made  to 

1  See  Wipo,  op.  cit.  Cap.  xxx.  {M.G-H.  Script,  xi.  270):  "  Imperator  reversus 
ad  Turicum  castrum  pervenit ;  ibi  plures  Burgundionum,  regina  Burgundiae  iam 
vidua  et  comes  Hupertus  et  alii  qui  propter  insidias  Odonis  in  Burgundia  ad  imp. 
venire  nequiverant,  per  Italiam  pergentes,  occurrebant  sibi,  et,  eftecti  sui,  fide  pro- 
missa  per  sacramentum  sibi  et  filio  suo  Heinrico  regi,  mirifice  donati  redierunt." 
Cf.  Bresslau,  Konrad  II,  11.  71 --2,  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  pp.  161-2;  I  think 
M.  Poupardin  goes  too  far  in  saying  they  were  compelled  to  leave  the  Viennois 
by  Eudes'  capture  of  Vienne.  We  do  not  know  that  they  were  there.  The 
Queen's  and  Humbert's  lands  lay  largely  further  east.  Nor  do  we  know  that  Eudes 
held  Tarentaise  or  Aosta  now,  even  if  he  conquered  the  latter  for  a  time  (see  p.  30, 
n.  4);  one  of  which  things  would  be  necessary  to  close  the  Little  St  Bernard.  Wipe's 
words  seem  to  imply  a  quick  return  of  the  Burgundians  to  Burgundy  from  Zurich. 
Humbert  appears  to  control  Aosta  in  1034  (see  below,  p.  35) :  and  in  fact  they  would 
hardly  be  so  bribed  by  Conrad  if  he  had  to  restore  them.  The  identity  of  Count 
Hupertus  with  Humbert  W^hitehands  is  shown  by  his  connection  with  Ennengarde 
and  the  Alpine  passes  (see  above,  p.  21,  n.  i,  and  below,  pp.  58,  61-2);  the  variation 
of  the  form  of  the  name  presents  no  difficulty  (see  below,  p.  53  (docs),  and  p.  1 16). 

"^  See  Bresslau,  Konrad  II,  11.  74-6,  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  pp.  162-3. 

^  This  is  evidence  for  the  view  that  Eudes  could  make  no  further  progress  in 
Burgundy.     Else  why  did  he  not  get  himself  elected  king  in  the  breathing-space  ? 

*  See  Bresslau,  Konrad  II,  11.  86-9,  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  pp.  163-5. 

P.  o.  3 


34       Humbert  Whitehands  in   Burgundian  politics 

conquer  Burgundy,  if  he  meant  to  have  it.  During  his  Easter  (14  April 
1034)  court  at  Ratisbon  he  laid  his  plans'.  While  he  himself  with 
his  Germans  again  assaulted  the  intra-Jurane  territory,  an  Italian  army 
was  to  attack  Burgundy  from  the  south  under  Aribert,  Archbishop  of 
Milan,  and  Boniface,  Marquess  of  Tuscany.  Thus  the  enemies'  position 
would  be  turned. 

In  June  Conrad  II  started  from  Basel.  He  marched  through  the 
county  of  Vaud,  capturing  Neuchatel  and  the  other  castles  in  his  way, 
save  Morat,  which  perhaps  he  masked  with  a  detachment.  Completely 
successful,  he  reached  Geneva  I  The  ease  of  his  progress  was  no 
doubt  largely  due  to  the  fact  that  the  enemy  were  taken  in  the  rear.  The 
Lombard  forces  under  Archbishop  Aribert  and  Marquess  Boniface  of 
Tuscany  had  started  earlier  it  seems  than  the  Germans,  about  the 
beginning  of  May'^;   and  they  reached  Geneva  before  the  Emperor  ^ 

^  Bresslau,  Konrad  II,  il.  102-5,  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  pp.  165-6. 

-  Wipo,  Cap.  XXXII.  [M.G.H.  Script,  xi.  270),  onlysays  for  this  march  :  "Chuon- 
radus,  expeditis  Teutonicis  et  Italis,  Burgundiam  acute  adiit.  Teutones  ex  una 
parte,  ex  altera  archiepiscopus  Mediolanensis  Heribertus  et  caeteri  Italici  ductu 
Huperti  comite  de  Burgundia  usque  ad  Rhodanum  flumen  convenerunt. "  Arnulf  of 
Milan  says  (Gesia  Archiepiscoporum  Mediolan.  II.  8,  M.  G.H.  Script.  VIII.  14),  "  Ipse  vero 
ex  contigua  sibi  parte  obstrusos  irrumpens  aditus  municipia  quaeque  praeoccupat." 
Ann.  Sangall.  majores,  sub  1034  {M.G.H.  Script,  i.  83),  have:  "Chuonradus  imperator 
iterum  Burgundiam  cum  exercitu  intravit,  et  omnia  municipia  cum  civil)us  usque  ad 
Rhodanum  tiunien  suae  ditioni  subegit  Genevamque  pervenit."  Herimannus  Augiensis, 
1034  {M.G.H.  Script,  v.  121),  "Imperator  iterum  Burgundiam  cum  magnis  petens 
copiis,  omnia  cis  Rodanum  castella  subjecit,  Murtenam  diruit,  Genevensem  urbem 
intravit."  It  will  be  noticed  that  Herim.  Aug.  places  the  capture  of  Morat  before 
Conrad's  entry  in  Geneva  (therein  perhaps  supported  by  the  "omnia  municipia"  of 
An7i.  Sangall.  maj.),  but  Wipo's  evidence,  supported  as  it  is  (see  below,  p.  36,  n.  i), 
is  conclusive.  The  suggestion  of  Carutti  ( Uinberto  Biancamano,  pp.  37  and  105)  that 
the  variant,  with  little,  if  any,  MS.  authority,  in  Herim.  Aug.'s  text,  "  Muriennam,"  is 
to  be  accepted,  and  a  campaign  in  Maurienne  deduced  therefrom,  lacks  all  probability 
in  view  of  the  order  of  events  and  the  known  course  of  the  campaign :  nor  can  the 
complaint  of  Bishop  Theobald  of  St  Jean  de  Maurienne  in  a  charter  of  1040  (Doc. 
Acad.  Savoie,  Charles  de  Maurienne,  11.  13),  which  grants  some  episcopal  lands  to 
the  canons,  "  eo  quod  locus  unde  videor  esse  episcopus  destructum  mihi  videtur,"  be 
evidence  for  it.  See  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  p.  160,  who  says  the  passage  refers  to  the 
cathedral  only.  The  state  of  anarchy  of  much  of  Burgundy  is  too  well  known:  the 
supposed  union  of  the  rebellious  diocese  of  Maurienne  to  that  of  Turin  (see  Savio, 
Gh  antichi  vescovi,  pp.  230,  233,  Manteyer,  Origines,  pp.  400-6)  is  based  on  a  forged 
diploma  of  Conrad  II  (Car.  Reg.  civ.) ;  see  Bresslau,  Konrad  II,  11.  475-6,  and 
M.G.H.  Dipl.  IV.  p.  411.     See  below,  p.  97,  n.  5. 

^  See  Bresslau,  Konrad  II,  11.  109,  n.  i,  and  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  p.  166. 
Marquess  Boniface  made  an  appointment  for  25  April  at  Masino  (Maximum),  south 
of  Ivrea  (Muratori,  Ant.  I.   589). 

■*  Ann.  Sangall.  maj.  1034  {M.G  H.  Script.  I.  83),  "  Ibi  (Geneva)  vero  ab 
Heriberto  Mediol.  archiepiscopo  caeterisque  Italiae  et  Burgundiae  principibus 
honorifice  susceptus  (Chuonradus)."  This  statement  is  not  contradicted  by  any 
other  source  and  is  made  probable  by  the  earlier  start  of  the  Italians. 


Conrad   II   conquers   Burgundy  35 

Under  the  guidance  of  Humbert  Whitehands  they  had  passed  the 
frontier  by  the  defile  at  Bard  into  the  Val  d'Aosta,  and  crossed  the 
Great  St  Bernard,  apparently  without  fighting^  Thence  they  marched 
down  to  the  Rhone  valley  and  proceeded  to  Geneva.  One  would  think 
from  the  absence  of  any  mention  of  the  Lake  of  Geneva,  that  they  must 
have  struck  west  from  St  Maurice,  and  crossed  the  eastern  portion  of 
the  pagus  Genevefisis  held  by  Eudes'  partizan  Gerold".  Eudes  himself, 
as  the  two  armies  closed  in  on  him,  seems  to  have  left  his  supporters  to 
shift  for  themselves^;  and  when  the  Emperor  entered  Geneva,  he  found 
them  ready  to  submit.  Burchard  III  of  Lyons  and  Gerold  of  the 
Genevois  were  the  principal  nobles  who  surrendered,  a  fact  which  shows 
how  restricted  Eudes'  real  sphere  of  power  had  been*.  On  the  ist 
August  1034  Conrad  solemnly  wore  his  Burgundian  crown  and  was 
acclaimed  king  by  the  Burgundian  magnates.  The  election  of  Payerne 
was  thus  ratified  by  a  more  representative  assembly^ 

Morat,   however,   still   held  out.     Conrad  marched  back  there  in 
full  force,  and  took  the  town  by  storm,  in  which  Boniface  of  Tuscany 

^  See  Wipo,  passage  quoted  p.  34,  n.  2  ;  Arnulf  of  Milan,  Gesta  Archiepiscoporum 
Mediolan.  11.  8  (M.G.ff.  Script,  viii.  14),  "E  vicino...Italiae  cum  optimatibus 
ceteris  electi  duces  incedunt  scilicet  praesul  Heribertus  et...marchio  Bonifatius,  duo 
lumina  regni,  explorantes  accessus  illos,  quos  reddunt  meabiles  praecisa  saxa  inex- 
pugnabilis  opidi  Bardi.  Per  hos  ducentes  Longobardorum  exercitum,  Jovii  montis 
ardua  juga  transcendunt ;  sicque  vehementi  irruptione  terrain  ingredientes,  ad 
Caesarem  usque  perveniunt.  Cumque  nequirent  Burgundiones  resistere,  dedicionem 
accelerant,  perpetua  subjectionis  condictione  Chuonrado  substrati.  Et  factum  est  ut 
in  magna  gloria  reverterentur  omnes  ad  propria."  This  seems  to  imply  that  Bard  was 
held  in  their  favour  and  that  there  was  no  fighting  till  they  crossed  the  St  Bernard, 
which  is  natural  if  Humbert  led  them  through  his  own  county  into  the  hostile  territory 
of  St  Maurice  (cf.  p.  30,  n.  4).  Even  there  ravaging  seems  to  be  implied  more  than 
a  battle.     Cf.  Bresslau,  Konrad II,  11.  1 10,  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  pp.  166-7. 

2  i.e.  over  the  Pas  de  Morgins  and  either  down  the  Drance  to  Thonon,  or  to  the 
Arve  at  Cluses.  Humbert's  presence  would  make  the  country  easier  to  march  through. 
That  the  armies  met  at  Geneva  is  stated  by  Ann.  Sanga/l.  ma;,  (see  p.  34,  n.  4)  and 
seems  to  be  implied  by  Wipo  (see  p.  34,  n.  2),  unless  we  are  to  suppose  that  Conrad 
marched  via  Chillon  and  joined  the  Italians  near  there. 

•*  F"or  his  presence  in  the  campaign,  see  Bresslau,  Konrad II,  11.  in. 

•*  Wipo,  Cap.  xxxn.,  "  Augustus  veniens  ad  Genevensem  civitatem  Geroldum 
principem  regionis  illius  et  archiepiscopum  Lugdunensem  et  alios  quam  plures 
subegit."  Herimannus  Augiensis,  1034  [AI.G.H.  Script,  v.  121),  "Lugdunensem 
archiepiscopum  Burghardum  (see  p.  28,  n.  5) — cum  multis  aliis  principibus  in 
dedicionem  accepit."  Arnulf.  Mediol.  n.  8,  see  above,  n.  i.  If  the  above  suggested 
route  of  the  Italians  is  correct,  Burchard  III  of  St  Maurice  and  Gerold  of  the 
Genevois  would  be  the  chief  sufferers  from  their  invasion. 

'  Ann.  Sangall.  maj.  1034  {M.G.H.  Script.  I.  83),  "in  festivitate  S.  Petri  ad 
Vincula  coronatus  producitur,  et  in  regnum  Burgundionum  rex  eiigitur."  Cf.  Arnulf 
of  Milan,  above,  n.  1.  The  phrasing  of  Ann.  Sangall.  maj.  seems  otilcially  exact.  It 
would  have  been  absurd  to  let  the  sectional  assembly  at  Payerne  lack  real  confirmation. 
See  Bresslau,  Konrad  II,  11.  111-12,  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  p.  168. 

3—2 


36      Humbert  Whitehands  in  Burgundian  politics 

distinguished  himself.  The  remnant  of  Eudes'  partizans  now  fled  the 
realm,  and  were  deprived  of  their  lands  by  the  conqueror.  On  his 
side  the  cautious  Emperor  left  nothing  to  chance ;  he  took  hostages  of 
the  Burgundian  magnates  and  made  distributions  of  benefices  to  his 
fideles.  Then  he  started  for  Germany  \  Eudes'  pretensions  in  Burgundy 
were  over  and  there  is  no  need  to  tell  of  his  defeat  and  death  in  1037. 

One  would  like  to  know  who  were  the  beneficiaries  and  where  were 
the  benefices,  with  regard  to  whom  and  which  Conrad  took  action. 
Most  no  doubt  would  be  in  the  intra-Jurane  pagi ;  but  it  is  possible 
that  the  marked  Franco-Swabian  settlement  south  of  the  Lake  of 
Geneva  was  one  result  of  Conrad's  victory^,  and  we  may  note  that  two 
neighbouring  dynasts,  who  were  both  early  supporters  of  the  Emperor, 
were  making  an  advance  in  power,  a  step  or  so  in  which  may  well  have 
happened  now.  Guigues  III  the  Old,  of  Graisivaudan  and  Albon, 
ancestor  of  the  Dauphins,  appears  for  the  first  time  authentically  as 
Count  in  a  charter  of  the  20th  August  1034  just  after  the  assembly  at 
Geneva.     Have  we  not  here  an  imperial  enfeoffment^.?     As  to  what 

^  Wipo,  Cap.  XXXII.  {M.G.H.  Script,  xi.  270),  "  et  reversus  castnim  Murat  cum 
fortissimis  militibus  Odonis  munitum  obsidens  vi  cepit  et  quos  intus  invenerat, 
captivos  duxit.  Caeteri  fautores  Odonis  hoc  audientes  solo  timore  Caesaris  fugi- 
erunt;  quos  persecutus  Caesar  omnino  exterminavit  de  regno  et  acceptis  de  principibus 
Burgundiae  multis  obsidibus,  rediit  etc."  Herimannus  Augiensis,  1034  (see  p.  34, 
n.  2),  doubtless  by  mistake,  places  the  capture  of  Moral  in  the  first  part  of  the 
campaign,  but  his  later  evidence  cannot  weigh  against  the  precise  statement  of  Wipo. 
A  legendary  account  of  Boniface's  exploits  at  Muroaltum  ("  High-wall"),  followed  by 
atrocities  committed  by  him  as  he  returned  (probably  in  the  Vallais),  is  given  by 
Donizo,   Vita  Mathildis  {M.G.H.  Script,  xii.  369). 

-  See  Grober,  Grundriss  der  ronianischen  Philologie,  I.  546. 

^  See  Manteyer,  Paix,  pp.  143-6.  M.  de  Manteyer  considers  this  promotion  the 
result  of  the  enfeoffment  to  Guigues  the  Old,  by  Archbishop  Leger,  of  half  the  latter's 
county  of  Vienne  (see  above,  p.  19,  and  n.  3),  the  other  half  being  given  to  Humbert 
Whitehands.  Thus  the  Bishop  would  create  a  Count  by  enfeoffing  his  comitatus  to  his 
advocate.  Certainly  the  Dauphins  did  homage  to  the  Archbishops  of  Vienne  (see 
below,  pp.  82-3)  later,  but  the  Savoyards  (by  the  theory  in  a  similar  position)  only 
did  so  for  the  late  (thirteenth  century)  acquisition  of  Septeme,  not  for  their  other 
Viennois  possessions  (see  below,  p.  81,  n.  5).  Would  there  be  anything  to  prevent 
the  Emperor  granting  a  comital  districtiis  to  Guigues  if  he  did  not  interfere  with  the 
Archbishop's  fiscal  claims  and  demesne  ?  Perhaps  there  was  a  joint  an-angement. 
Manteyer  (p.  143)  points  out  that  in  Emperor  Conrad  H's  diploma  to  the  Archbishop 
of  Vienne,  31  March  1038  (Chevalier,  Cartul.  St  Andrtl-le-bas,  App.,  51*,  p.  260),  the 
county  is  not  expressly  mentioned.  This  may  show  the  Archbishop  had  lost  the 
county;  but  if  he  had  merely  enfeoffed  it,  it  would  surely  appear  in  the  diploma — he 
would  hold  it  of  the  Emperor,  the  vassal  Counts  of  him.  c.  1037  there  are  traces  of  a 
considerable  hostility  to  Conrad  H  in  the  entourage  of  Leger  at  Vienne  (see  Man- 
teyer, Paix,  pp.  173-85).  However,  the  diploma  is  studiously  general  in  its  terms, 
mentioning  not  even  the  right  to  strike  money  for  the  province  of  Vienne.  It  only 
says,   "  omnes  res  et  possessiones  scilicet  mobiles  et  immobiles  ac  utriusque  sexus 


Humbert  Whitehands'  reward  37 

Count  Humbert  Whitehands  may  have  received  we  are  reduced  still 
more  to  conjecture.  Does  the  Savoyard  right  to  invest  the  Bishop  of 
Sion  with  the  regalia  of  Vallais  go  back  to  this  epoch  when  Aymon, 
Humbert  Whitehands'  son,  was  bishop^?  Then  there  is  the  acquisition 
of  the  county  of  Maurienne,  of  which  in  1046  Humbert  appears  for 
the  first  time  in  the  documents  as  Count,  then  of  some  standing^. 
Lastly,  there  is  the  lordship  of  "  New  "  Chablais  on  the  southern  shore 
of  Lake  Geneva,  the  process  by  which  its  dominion  came  to  Savoy 
being  unknown.  It  might  of  course  be  a  consequence  of  the  march  of 
the  Italians  under  Humbert's  guidance  in  1034.  There  is  no  evidence  to 
decide  the  question  unless  the  German  settlement  there  is  to  be  regarded 
as  such ;  but  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  Humbert's  appearance  in 
Maurienne  comes  in  very  happily,  and  there  is  the  tradition  (unluckily 
quite  untrustworthy)  that  Humbert  had  it  by  grant  from  an  Emperor^. 

Burchard  HI,  the  truculent  Archbishop  of  Lyons,  did  not  long  keep 
in  the  Emperor's  grace.  We  do  not  know  the  cause  of  his  revolt,  but 
in  1036  he  was  captured  by  Ulric,  son  of  Seliger,  and  then  imprisoned 
by  Conrad  II.  His  captivity  was  not  of  long  duration,  but  the  Arch- 
bishopric he  never  recovered*.  He  seems  to  have  been  pardoned'^ 
(family  influence  would  do  much)  at  the  Burgundian  assembly  held  at 
Soleure  about  October  1038.  At  this  four  days' conference  the  Emperor 
attempted  to  restore  some  sort  of  public  law  in  the  anarchic  kingdom®. 

familias  que  imperatores  et  reges  Francorum  et  Burgundiorum  eidem  episcopatui... 
concesserunt,...confirmanius."  So  no  inference  can  really  be  made  from  it  as  to  the 
Archbishop's  claims.  I  think  we  may  dismiss  in  any  case  the  supposed  enfeoffment 
by  Leger  to  Whitehands. 

^  This  is  unlikely  owing  to  the  important  position  of  Bishop  Ermenfrid  at  the 
court  of  Henry  IV. 

'^  Car.  Reg.  cxxxii.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  {95)).  The  date  is  doubtful,  1043, 
1046,  or  1047.  Carutti  [Umherto  Biancamano,  pp.  103-4)  treats  Car.  Reg.  cvii. 
(Cipolla,  Monumenta  Novaliciaisia,  I.  161)  as  evidence  for  Humljert's  possession  of 
Maurienne  in  ro36,  but  Coise,  etc.,  are  therein  expressly  stated  to  be  in  Savoy.  Cf. 
below,  p.  61,  n.  2. 

'^  Anciennes  Chroniques  de  Savoie  {M.H.P.  .Script.  II.  81).  The  Emperor's  name 
is  given  as  Henry  and  the  donation  is  made  at  Rome  at  the  imperial  coronation.  See 
above,  p.  ■26. 

*  Herimannus  Augiensis,  1036  (AI.G.H.  Script,  v.  122),  "  Burghardus  Lugdun. 
archiepiscopus...(see  p.  28,  n.  5). ..cum  Oudalricum  Seligeri  filium  bello  peteret,  ab 
ipso  victus  et  captus  imperatorique  adductus,  ferro  compeditus  et  custodia  mancipatus 
multis  annis  detinetur  in  vinculis."  Cf.  also  Ralph  Glaber,  quoted  p.  28,  n.  5.  See 
Bresslau,  Konrad  II,  11.  421,  and  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  p.  170. 

*  Archbishop  Burchard  appears  as  Abbot  of  St  Maurice  in  a  charter  of  1057  (see 
below,  p.  64,  n.  2),  Car.  Reg.  cxix.  (M.H.P.  Cart.  Ii.  130). 

*  Wipo,  Cap.  XXXVIII.,  "convocatis  cunctis  principibus  regni  generale  colloquium 
habuit  cum  eis  et  diu  desuetam  atque  pene  deletam  legem  tunc  primum  Burgundiam 
praelibare  fecerat."  Herimann.  Aug.  1038  gives  Soleure  as  the  place  of  assembly. 
See  Bresslau,  op.  cit.  11.  322-5,  Poupardin,  op.  cit.  pp.  173-5. 


38       Humbert  Whitehands  in   Burgundian  politics 

Of  more  real  importance  was  the  association  at  the  same  time  of  the 
young  King  Henry  III  with  his  father  in  the  Burgundian  kingdom, 
although  how  far  Conrad  surrendered  any  power  to  his  son  is  doubtful. 

The  position  of  the  Humbertines  in  central  Burgundy  was  in  1039 
extremely  strong.  Members  of  the  family  held  the  counties  of  Aosta^, 
Maurienne^,  Belley  and  Savoy ^,  the  Count-Bishopric  of  Sion^,  the 
similar  Abbacy  of  St  Maurice',  the  Bishopric  of  Belley",  as  well  as  im- 
mune demesnes  and  in  cot?wiendams  in  the  Genevois,  Sermorens  and 
the  Viennois''.  Humbert  Whitehands  was  in  addition  advocate  of 
Queen  Ermengarde^  To  this  complex  of  hereditary  official  rights'*  and 
benefices  and  alods,  strengthened  no  doubt  by  the  gradual  enforcement 
of  homage  from  the  landowners  in  their  counties  and  from  weaker 
neighbours,  and  by  the  practical  suzerainty  over  the  Bishoprics  of  Belley, 
Maurienne  and  Aosta,  they  were  now  to  add  an  Italian  dominion, 
giving  them  a  still  more  complete  control  of  the  West  Alpine  range. 

After  Conrad's  death  in  1039  Henry  III  appears  as  undoubted 
ruler,  making  vigorous  efforts  to  introduce  some  sort  of  central  adminis- 
tration. We  find  him  supporting  episcopal  independence  in  order  to 
check  the  lay  seigneurs  and  appointing  a  Chancellor  as  well"*.  In  the 
winter  of  1042  he  enters  the  land  in  force,  from  Italy  via  Aosta,  going 
to  St  Maurice   and  to  Besangon".     The  old  opponents  of  Conrad, 

^  See  p.  10  above.  ^  See  p.  37  above. 

*  See  below,  Sect,  iv.;  a  Humbert  seems  to  appear  as  Count  of  Savoy  in  1036, 
Car.  Jieg.  cvii.  (Cipolla,  Monu?>ienta  Novaliciensia,  i.  161). 

■*  See  p.  29  above. 

*  See  pp.  20,  29,  n.  3,  and  below,  pp.  92  and  122-3. 
^  See  p.  29  above. 

^  See  p.  23,  and  below,  Sect.  iv. 

8  See  Car.  Reg.  xci.  [Cartul.  de  Cluny,  iv.  95,  Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  102) 
dated  by  Manteyer,  Origifies,  p.  397,  q.v.  for  identifications,  4  June — 24  September 
1039.  Ermengarde  gives  to  Cluny  two  mansi  "in  pago  Genevensi,"  one  "in  villa 
Sibingiaco "  (?  Silingiaco  =  Sillingy  near  Annecy),  the  other  "in  villa  Cicinlatis" 
(?  Seysolaz  near  Sillingy),  by  her  advocate  Count  Hubertus. 

9  The  belief  of  Gingins-la-Sarra,  Origine  de  la  R.  Maison  de  Savoie  {M.D.R.  xx. 
238-9),  and  Carutti,  Umherto  I  BiuTuat/iano,  pp.  loo-i,  that  Humbert  Whitehands 
was  Constable  of  Burgundy,  rested  on  a  misinterpretation  of  the  Aostan  charter  of 
1032  (Car.  Reg.  xc.  Schiaparelli,  Archivio  sto7-ico  ital.  1905,  Ser.  v.  xxxvi.  332, 
where  facsimile)  as  shown  by  Bresslau,  Konrad  II,  ii.  65,  Manteyer,  Origities, 
pp.  385-7,  and  conclusively  by  Schiaparelli,  loc.  cit.  The  words  describing  the  lands 
given  by  Humbert  in  exchange  to  the  monastery  of  S.  Benigno,  viz.  "de  suo 
comitatu  et  beneficio  Costabile...de  comitatu  vel  a  beneficio  Costabile...habet  finis  de 
una  parte  Costabile,"  mean  that  the  field  in  question  was  sub-enfeoffed  by  the  Count 
to  a  certain  Costabilis,  whose  assent  as  tenant  and  party  to  the  transfer  is  subscribed 
"  Costabil[e]  f[ir]mavit."  These  last  words  were  (before  Schiaparelli's  article)  misread 
"  Constantinus." 

1"  Jacob,  Bourgogne,  pp.  39  ff.  and  63. 

"  Herimann.  Augien.  1042  (M.G.H.  Script,  v.  124). 


Henry   Ill's  west- Alpine  policy  39 

however,  were  restive  :  Rainald  I  of  "Franche  Comte  "  and  Ceroid  I  of 
the  Genevois,  after  a  revolt  in  1045,  submitted  to  Henry  at  Soleure^  In 
May  1048  and  in  May  1052  he  held  fresh  diets  at  Soleure,  and  at  the 
last  of  them  there  seems  to  have  been  a  partial  revolt,  which  was  not 
altogether  pacified^.  In  short,  though  Henry  tried  to  rule  Burgundy  as 
a  kingdom,  he  had  little  success.  Order  was  far  more  effectually  enforced 
— although  even  thus  not  to  a  great  extent— by  the  Council  of  Montriond, 
held  in  1041  in  the  Pays  de  Vaud,  for  the  provinces  of  Besangon  and 
Vienne.  An  absolute  cessation  of  hostilities,  "  the  Truce  of  God,''  was 
now  added  to  the  former  Peace.  The  Truce  was  to  extend  from  sunset 
on  Thursday  to  dawn  on  Monday,  from  Advent  to  Epiphany  and  from 
Septuagesima  to  the  Octave  of  Easter^  In  some  ways,  of  course,  the 
Truce  was  a  retreat  from  the  more  elaborate  Peace,  but  it  was  probably 
more  effectual.  We  need  not  doubt  Humbert's  concurrence ;  it  was  to 
the  interest  of  a  seigneur,  who  had  official  authority  over  others,  and 
who  drew  a  revenue  from  the  great  trade-routes  (the  Aostan  and  Mauri- 
ennese  tolls),  to  check  petty  private  war*. 

In  fact  it  was  the  great  lords  who  could  enforce  some  kind  of  peace 
with  the  aid  of  the  Church,  the  bishops,  it  will  be  remembered,  being 
both  seigneurs  and  ecclesiastics  ;  and  among  them  the  old  Count  of 
Maurienne  was  one  of  the  most  powerful.  He  was  soon  to  quit  the 
scene.  His  last  dated  charter  is  of  the  14th  June  1047  and  is  executed 
in  Maurienne ^  By  that  time  his  youngest''  son  Oddo  had  married 
Adelaide  of  Turin,  and  had  received  the  Mark  which  is  conveniently 
designated  "of  Turin ^"     This  marriage,  with  the  enormous  increase  of 

^  Herimann.  Augien.  1044,  1045  (AI.G.H.  Script,  v.  124-5). 

2  Herimann.  Augien.  1048,  1052  {M.G.H.  Script,  v.  128,  131).  See  for  these 
movements  of  Henry  HI,  Jacob,  op.  cit.  pp.  41-9. 

*  Poupardin,  Bours^ogne,  pp.  310-1  (,  Manteyer,  Paix,  pp.  103-5;  the  text  M.G.H. 
Const.  I.  599,  "  Treugas  autem  a  nil.  feria  post  occasum  solis  usque  ad  secundam 
post  ortum  solis  et  ab  adventu  Domini  usque  ad  octavam  epyphanie  et  a  LX.\.  usque 
ad  octavam  pasche  ab  omnibus  inviolabiliter  precepimus  observari." 

■*  There  is  also  a  special  Truce  of  Aosta,  Uuc,  Miscell.  di  Storia  Hal.  XXIV.  369, 
M.G.H.  Const,  i.  602. 

'  Car.  Reg.  CXXXii.  Cilirario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  (95).  The  dating-formula  runs: 
"  Regnante  Henrico  Imp.  viii.  xviii.  Kal.  Julii,  Luna  in."  C.  e  P.  placed  it 
wrongly  under  Henry  H  1007  or  1008,  Carutti,  Umbcrto  Biancamano,  p.  108, 
14  June  1046,  Manteyer,  Origines,  p.  400,  14  June  1043,  to  make  the  Luna  hi. 
correspond  with  the  day.  This  would  seem  conclusive,  were  it  not  that  Henry  is 
described  as  Emperor.  Now  he  was  crowned  at  Rome,  Christmas  1046.  As  he 
became  King  of  Burgundy  c.  Oct.  1038  (see  above,  p.  38)  his  eighth  regnal  year  would 
run  from  c.  October  1045  to  1046;  but  the  year  may  be  counted  from  Conrad's  ileath, 
4  June  1039,  ^^^  'h^  eighth  year  wcjuld  then  run  from  c.  June  1046  to  c.  June  1047. 

"  In  the  Charters  where  some  order  in  the  names  is  observed,  his  name  always 
comes  last  of  Humberts  sons. 

'  See  below,  Cap.  11. 


40       Humbert  Whitehands  in   Burgundian  politics 

power  resulting  from  it,  could  only  have  taken  place  with  the  Emperor 
Henry  Ill's  concurrence^  Evidently  Henry  had  decided  to  concen- 
trate the  control  of  the  north-western  Alps  in  sure  hands.  As  we  shall 
see,  he  made  alliance  with  the  Humbertines  a  cardinal  point  of  his 
policy".  There  was  a  purely  Italian  aspect  of  his  measures  ^  as  there 
was  a  purely  Burgundian  one,  viz.  the  control  of  the  centre  of  that 
kingdom*;  but  perhaps  more  important  was  the  imperial  aspect,  the 
security  of  the  routes  between  Germany  and  Italy,  and  the  closing  if 
necessary  of  the  routes  between  France  and  Italy^ 

The  date  of  Count  Humbert  Whitehands'  death  is  still  uncertain. 
The  legendary  Chroniques  place  it  in  1048®:  the  Necrology  of  the 
Abbey  of  Talloires  that  he  helped  to  found  gives  the  day  of  the  month 
as  the  I  St  July'.  The  fact  that  his  son  Oddo  had  lands  in  Tarentaise 
between  March  and  June  1 051,  as  well  as  the  phraseology  of  his  diploma 
concerning  them,  seems  to  imply  Humbert  was  already  deadl  Perhaps 
the  I  St  July  1048  is  the  real  date^ 

Of  his  children  we  know  four  sons,  Amadeus  I,  Burchard,  Aymon 
and  Oddo  I.  The  personalities  of  the  two  elder  will  have  to  be  dis- 
cussed in  the  next  section.  Aymon  was  Bishop  of  Sion  and  Abbot  of 
St  Maurice'":  Oddo  Marquess  of  Turin  and  ancestor  of  the  later  House 
of  Savoy ^^ 

^  See  below,  Cap.  11.  Sect.  iv.  -  See  helow,  Cap.  11.  .Sections  iv.  and  v. 

3  See  Jacob,  Bourgogne,  pp.  60-2,  Steindorf,  Heinrich  III,  11.  324-5. 

*  See  Jacob,  Bourgogne,  pp.  60-2. 

^  Cf.  Bresslau,  Konrad II,  il.  117;  and  for  the  later  period  Hellmann,  Die  Grafen 
von  Savoyen,  pp.  67-71.     Cf.  Coolidge,  The  Alps  in  Nature  and  History,  pp.  150-71. 

^  M.H.P.  Script.  II.  88.  They  say  he  was  buried  in  the  cathedral  of  St  Jean-de- 
Maurienne. 

''  Neues  Archiv,  XI.  102,  "Kal.  Julii  obiit  Upertus  amicus  noster. "  This  doubtless 
refers  to  our  Humbert.  Car.  Reg.  cxxxvi.  Sup.  xii.  I  have  not  discovered  whence 
Carutti  obtains  the  date  of  the  year  1048  unless  it  is  from  the  Chroniques. 

^  Car.  Reg.  cxLill.  M.H.P.  Chart,  i.  572:  it  is  dated  1051  (beginning  25  March) 
and  I2th  year  of  King  Henr)' :  i.e.  12th  year  after  Conrad's  death,  running  June  1050 
— June  1051  (cf.  Manteyer,  Origines,  ■p.  408).  The  grant  is  "pro  remedio  animae 
patris  mei  Humbertus  comes  et  propter  animam  meam."  No  other  Humbertines  are 
signatories. 

*  Carutti  (Reg.  cxxxvi.  and  Sup.  en.)  has  given  up  his  former  suggestion  {Umberto 
Biancamano,  pp.  11 3- 14)  that  the  charter  confirming  Bishop  Theobald's  grant  to  the 
Canons  of  Maurienne  (Car.  Reg.  cxxxili.  Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  6:  Besson,  ed.  11. 
p.  336)  implied  Theobald  (ob.  1056)  was  already  dead.  The  phrase  is  "omnia  quae 
Theubaldus  episcopus  per  meam  donationem  tenere  videbatur "  :  and  presumably 
alludes  to  the  fact  that  Theobald  had  transferred  his  rights  to  the  Canons.  Then 
Savio,  /  Primi  Conti  di  Savoia  (Misc.  stor.  ital.  XXVI.  462-4),  proves  that  Humbert 
Whitehands  had  died  well  before  19  April  1054  (when  Pope  Leo  IX  died)  as  on  that 
date  his  son  Oddo  had  been  reigning  for  some  time  in  Maurienne.  The  document  is 
Car.  Reg.  CLXXii.;  cf.  below,  p.  122. 

^^  See  above,  p.  29.  11  See  below,  Cap.  11.  Section  iv. 


Summary  of  Whitehands'  life  41 

However  much  doubt  remains  over  the  details  of  Humbert  White- 
hands'  Hfe,  the  general  course  of  events  under  which  the  Savoyard 
State  was  founded  is  pretty  clear.  About  1020  a.d.  the  Humbertines 
were  possessors  of  wide  lands  and  counties  between  the  Lake  of  Geneva 
and  Vienne.  They  continually  improved  their  position  by  a  strict 
alliance  with  the  decaying  royal  house,  from  which  they  obtained 
further  grants  to  be  carried  into  effect  by  their  own  power.  The  claim 
of  Conrad  II  to  the  succession  found  Humbert  Whitehands  Count  of 
Aosta,  and  in  view  of  the  connection  between  Germany  and  Italy  and 
of  the  whole  Burgundian  policy  of  the  Emperor,  he  was  therefore  the 
most  valuable  ally  obtainable  among  the  Burgundian  nobles.  He  was 
quick  to  make  use  of  his  advantage,  and  by  his  firm  pro-German  policy 
had  a  large  share  in  the  subjection  of  Burgundy  to  Conrad.  The 
county  of  Maurienne  may  have  been  his  reward.  In  any  case  the 
German  conquest  put  no  stop  to  the  practical  disintegration  of  the 
kingdom,  and,  like  the  other  Counts  and  some  of  the  greater  barons 
south  of  Lake  Geneva,  Humbert  at  his  death  would  be  in  possession  of 
the  regalian  as  well  as  the  comital  rights  in  his  various  counties  and 
lands.  If  the  multiple  and  heterogeneous  character  of  his  dominions 
forbids  us  to  speak  of  them  as  more  than  the  beginnings  of  a  state,  in 
actual  independence  Count  Humbert  would  not  be  much  inferior  to  a 
contemporary  Duke  of  Aquitaine. 


Section  IH.    The  problem  of  the  two  Humberts. 

Though  many  and  diverse  opinions  have  been  held  since  the  seven- 
teenth century  as  to  the  ancestors  of  Humbert,  it  was  not  till  the 
middle  of  the  nineteenth'  that  Baron  Gingins-la-Sarra  started  a  new 
opinion  with  regard  to  the  documents  (of  which  by  that  time  more 
were  known)  attributed  to  Count  Humbert  Whitehands  himself  His 
view'  was  that  two  Count  Humberts  and  their  families  had  been  con- 
fused together  by  historians.  They  were  uncle  and  nephew ;  the  uncle 
was  Count  Humbert  of  Belley,  husband  of  Auchilia,  with  three  sons, 
Count  Amadeus  of  Belley,  Burchard  (husband  of  Countess  Ermen- 
garde)  and  Oddo,  Bishop'  of  Belley;  the  nephew  was  Count  Humbert 
Whitehands  of  Aosta  and  Maurienne,  wife  unknown,  father  of  an 
Amadeus,  who  never  became  Count,  a  Burchard,  Bishop  of  some 
unknown  city  and  Abbot  of  St  Maurice,  Aymon,  Bishop  of  Belley,  and 

^  There  is  also  Carena's  (ob.  1769)  view  (see  Carutti,  Umberto  Biancamano, 
p.  149)  which  does  indeed  assign  the  earlier  charters  with  name  of  Humbert  to  a 
supposed  father  of  Whitehands,  first  husband  of  Queen  Ermengarde.  As  the  latter 
remarried  in  loii,  however,  this  affects  only  two  or  three  charters. 

-  Mdmoire  stir  rorigine  de  la  maison  de  Savoie,  M.D.R.  xx. 


42 


The  problem  of  the  two   Humberts 


Marquess  Oddo  of  Turin, 
as  follows^: 


We  may  thus  arrange  his  genealogical  tree 


Auchilia=  Humbert 

I  Ct  of  Belley 
I  ?977,  1030 


Amadeus  = 
Count 
?977 


Adela  =  Amadeus 

Ct  of  Belley 
1030,  105 1  (?) 

Humbert 
ob.  vi.  pat. 


Burchard  —  Countess 
Ermen- 
garde 
1023 

Aymon 


Oddo  Humbert  Whitehands  =  N.N. 

Bp  of  Ct  of  Aosta  and 

Belley  Maurienne 

1000-3  1022,  1046 


Amadeus 

1022,  1042 

never  Count 


Burchard 

Bpof 

Abbot  of  St  Maurice 
1022,  1068 


Aymon  Oddo 

Bp  of  Belley  Marquess 

1032,  io5i(?)  of  Turin 

1030  (?) 
ob.  1060 

Of  these  conclusions,  I  may  here  remark  that  the  identification  of 
the  Bishop  Aymon,  who  is  evidently  Humbert  Whitehands'  son  in 
various  charters,  with  Bishop  Aymon  of  Belley  is  negatived  by  a  docu- 
ment where  the  latter  gives  his  father's  name  as  Amadeus^.  I  think  it 
is  generally  agreed  that  Whitehands'  son  must  have  been  the  Bishop  of 
Sion.  Some  other  parts  of  the  scheme  also  do  not  seem  happy :  but 
the  general  idea  was  taken  up  by  Baron  Domenico  Carutti  and  worked 
out  by  him  in  his  treatise  //  Conte  Umberto  I  Biancamano^,  where  with 
remarkable  skill  and  clearness  he  argues  for  the  two  Count  Humberts 
and  the  two  branches  of  the  House  of  Savoy.  Carutti's  results  in  their 
corrected  form  given  in  the  Regesta  Comttum  Sabaudiae  are  as  follows : 


Amadeus 
Count  977 


Adelania 
ist  wife  of  Conrad, 
King  of  Burgundy 


N.N.  =  Humbert 
Ct  of 
Belley 
977, 1022 


Auchilia=  Humbert  I 

Whitehands 

Count  1024 

ob.  1048 


1 

Burchard  =  Ermengarde 
1023       I     Countess 


Aymon 

of 

Pierrefort 


Oddo 
Bp  of 
Belley 
1000-3 


Aymon 
1024  etc. 


Amadeus  =  Adela     Burchard 


Od'do 


Amadeus  I 
Count  1042 


Burchard 
1040 


Aymon 

Bp  of 

Sion 

ob.  1054 


Oddo 


Ct  of 
Belley 
1022, 
1048 


Bp  of  Aosta     102 

then  Abp 

of  Lyons 

Abbot  of  St  Maurice 

1022,  1048 


Aymon 
Bp  of  Belley  1032,  c.  1050 


Marquess 
of  Turin 
ob.  1060 

i  I 

Humbert 
ob.  vi.  pat. 

^  The  dates  underneath  are  those  of  the  personages'  appearance  in  charters. 
Gingins  did  not  know  all  of  them. 

^  Car.  Reg.  CXLI.  (Guigue,  Petit  Cartulaire  de  St  Sulpice  en  Bugey,  p.  26). 

3  This  work  originally  appeared  in  the  Archivio  storico  italiano.  Series  v.  Vols.  I., 
II.  (1878)  and  X.  (1882);  and  was  reissued  separately  with  modifications  to  bring  it 
up  to  date  in  1884  and  1889. 


The  rival  genealogies 


43 


His  contention  was  accepted  by  Bresslau'  and  by  the  modern  Pied- 
montese  school  of  historians,  headed  by  Professor  Gabotto.  Among 
them  Count  Benedetto  Baudi  di  Vesme  has  introduced  important 
modifications^.  His  scheme  as  shown  by  Professor  Patrucco  (1900) 
is  as  follows : 


Auchilia: 
dau.  of 
Conrad  of 
Burgundy 


I 

Humbert 
Ct  of  Belley 
971,  1003 


N.  N.  =  Amadeus 
dau.  of  I     Count 
Anselm  977 


Ulric 
Ct  of 

Vallais 


L_ 


Oddo 

Bp  of 

Belley 

995.  1003 


1 

Adelania 

=  Conrad 

King  of 

Burgundy 


L_ 


Adela  =  Amadeus 

Ct  of  Belley 

1022,  1030, 

1047 


Humbert 
ob.  vi.  pat. 


Burchard 

Bp  of  Aosta 

Abp  of  Lyons 

Abbot  of  St  Maurice 

1025  etc. 

1 

Aymon 

Bp  of  Belley 

1032,  1050 


Oddo 
1030 


Humbert  Whitehands 

Ct  of  Maurienne, 

later  of  Savoy 

1000,  1056 


The  study  of  Humbert  Whitehands'  life  and  ancestry  was  thus 
greatly  advanced  by  Baron  Carutti,  but  his  main  thesis  of  the  two 
Humberts  has  met  with  criticism  as  well  as  acceptance.  Signer 
Labruzzi^  has  upheld  the  single  personality  and  latterly  M.  G.  de 
Manteyer*  has  brought  new  material  to  bear  on  the  Humbertine  history, 
besides  re-examining  the  question  of  their  original  domains.  He,  too, 
and  he  is  followed  by  M.  Poupardin^,  is  for  the  single  line  of  Hum- 
bertines.     Thus  his  table  is  : 


^  Bresslau,  Konrad  II,  li.  60-5. 

^  Count  di  Vesme  has  not  yet  published  his  work  on  I principi  franco-sassoni  nelP 
impero  carolingico  which  is  to  appear  in  the  Biblioteca  delta  Societh  storica  subalpina. 
I  have  endeavoured  to  represent  his  views,  I  trust  with  accuracy,  as  I  gather  them 
from  Baron  de  Gerbaix-Sonnaz,  Stiidi  storici  stil  contado  di  Savoia  e  marchesato  in 
Italia,  Vol.  I.  (1884),  and  as  modified  in  Professor  C.  Patrucco's  Aosta  dalle  invasioni 
harha7-iche  alia  signoria  sabauda  in  the  Miscellanea  Valdostana  {B.S.S.S.  Vol.  XVII.) 
and  in  Professor  Patrucco's  Le  Fatniglie  Signorili  di  Saluzzo  in  Studi  Saluzzesi, 
Vol.  X.  of  the  same  Biblioteca.  But  it  is  possible  that  Count  di  Vesme,  from  his 
great  knowledge  of  the  charters  of  the  date,  is  in  possession  of  further  evidence, 
besides  that  already  known. 

*  Un  Jiglio  del  Biancamano,  Arch.  stor.  ital.  Ser.  V.  xvi.  and  la  monarchia  di 
Savoia  dalle  origini  alP  anno  iioj,  Rome,  1900. 

*  Les  Origines  de  la  Maison  de  Savoie  en  Bourgogne  (910-1060),  Rome,  1899, 
extract  from  Mdanges  d^archt'ologie  et  d'histoite  de  V Ecole  frani^aise  h  Rome,  XIX.; 
id.  Notes  additionnelles,  Paris,  1901,  extract  from  Moyen  Age,  Ser.  II.  T.  V.;  id.  La 
Paix  en  Viennois  (Anse  [77  /uin]  I02j)  et  les  additions  a  la  Bible  de  Vienne,  Crenoble, 
1906,  extract  from  Bulletin  de  la  Soc.  de  Statistique  de  risire,  XXXIII. 

^  Le  royaume  de  Bourgogne  (888-iojS),  pp.  262-4. 


44 


The  problem  of  the  two   Humberts 


Ulric 
Count 


Auchilia=:  Humbert  I 

I  Whitehands 

I      lOOO,    IO46 


Oddo 

Bp  of  Belley 

1000,  1003 


I — 


Adela  =  Amadeu.s  I 
I  Ct  of  Belley 
I  ro22,  1051 


1 1 

Burchard  III  Aymon 

Bp  of  Aosta         Bp  of  Sion 
Abp  of  Lyons         ob.  1054 
Abbot  of  St  Maurice 
1022,  1042 


Humbert 
ob.  vi.  pat. 


1 

Aymon 
Bp  of  Belley 
1032,  105- 


Burchard  =  Ermengarde 
1023  Countess 


Oddo 
Marquess 
of  Turin 


Aymon 
c.  1046 


Although  the  questions  of  Humbert's  personality  and  ancestry  are 
closely  bound  up  with  one  another,  they  are  essentially  distinct,  and 
deal  with  different  periods  of  Humbertine  history.  Therefore  it  seems 
best  to  treat  of  the  personality  first,  for  the  consideration  of  which  we 
have  more  material  and  tread  on  more  certain  ground.  Until  new 
documents  come  to  light,  his  ancestry  must  be  a  very  speculative  matter. 
Here  I  hope  to  show  that,  on  the  evidence  at  present  known,  we  must 
decide  for  a  single  Count  Humbert  in  the  various  Humbertine  docu- 
ments between  1000  and  1050,  who  is  that  same  Whitehands  the  ally 
of  Conrad  H  and  Queen  Ermengarde. 

To  proceed  then  with  the  inquiry  as  to  the  single  or  double 
Humbert,  it  seems  best  to  give  a  register  of  the  documents  involved 
in  order  of  date  as  far  as  that  is  possible,  along  with  the  names  and 
localities  which  are  of  importance,  then  to  give  the  short  separate  genea- 
logical statements  to  be  derived  from  them,  then  the  combined  genea- 
logies which  we  may  pretty  certainly  construct,  and  in  the  light  thus 
obtained  finally  to  discuss  whether  a  double  or  a  single  family-tree  is 
more  likely.  I  arrange  the  register  in  three  columns  :  (i)  those  charters 
which  are  admitted  by  Carutti  and  Di  Vesme  to  belong  to  Whitehands 
and  his  branch,  (2)  those  which  are  diversely  referred  to  the  White- 
hands'  branch,  or  to  that  called  by  Carutti  Savoy-Belley,  (3)  those 
unanimously  referred  by  the  exponents  of  the  double  family-tree  scheme 
to  Savoy-Belley.  I  should  mention  that  this  classification  does  not 
take  account  of  those  opinions  of  Gingins  which  appear  to  be  universally 
rejected,  such  as  the  affiliation  of  Bishop  Aymon  of  Belley  to  White- 
hands,  and  the  assertion  that  Bishop  Aymon  of  Sion  was  not  even  a 
Humbertine,  and  the  similar  dissociation  of  Archbishop  Burchard  HI 
of  Lyons  from  them.  On  the  other  hand  I  note  his  view  that  the  Bishop 
Burchard  of  1022  belongs  to  the  Whitehands'  branch,  since  that  rests, 
not  so  much  on  imperfect  information,  as  on  a  peculiar  characteristic  of 
the  documents,  as  will  be  seen. 

I  classify  by  the  leading  names  where  both  presumed  groups  occur 


Register  of  Humbertine  documents 


45 


in  the  same  document.     The  first  two  entries  hardly  belong  to  any  of 
the  three  headings. 

The  register  is  as  follows : 


(1) 


(2) 


Documents  claimed  for  Hum-        Documents  in  dispute,  whether 
bert  Whitehands  and  his  sons  belonging     to     Whitehands' 

by  Carutti  and  Di  Vesme.  branch  or  to  that  of  Savoy- 

Belley ;   also  those  of  Arch- 
bishop Burchard  III. 


(3) 

Documents  of  the  Belley 
branch  according  to  Carutti, 
Di  Vesme  and  Gingins. 


Car.  Reg.  xiii.i  (May 
957— July  974,  see  Man- 
teyer,  Origines,  p.  415 ; 
Carutti,  977),  Conrad  of 
Burgundy  confirms  some 
possessions  of  St  Chaffre 
in  Valentinois  and  Diois. 
Two  of  signatories  Ante- 
deus  comes  and  (Imbertus 
(al.  Erubertus)  cot/ies. 

[Car.  and  Vesme :  father 
and  uncle  of  Whitehands  ; 
Manteyer :  Humbert,  pro- 
bably Whitehands'  father.] 

Car.  Reg.  XI.2  (976), 
Amalfredus  sacerdos  gives 
to  Cluny  land  at  Aliens 
etc.  near  S(  Syviphorien 
d'Ozon  (Lyonnais)  in  pre- 
sence of  Htitnhertus  comes. 

[Car.  :      Whitehands' 
grandfather;  Vesme:  Hum- 
bert of  Belley  ;  Manteyer  : 
Whitehands'  father.] 

Car.  Reg.  .xx.*  (Jan. 
1000),  Oddo  Bp  (of  Belley), 
being  at  Bocizellum  castle 
(near  La  Cote  St  Andre 
in  Viennois),  grants  land 
he  holds  by  lease  at  Cha- 
tonnay  (near  St  Jean  de 
Boumay,  id.).  Among 
signatories  Bttorchardus, 
Ubertus. 

[Car.  :  (formerly)  pro- 
bably H.  of  Belley,  perhaps 
Whitehands  (later  vice 
versa)  ;    Gingins  :    H.    of 

.J,   ...  .f —  ,..,..„.       I  have  not  been  able  to  find  in 

Carutti's  register  or  elsewhere  the  charter  of  971  mentioned  by  Gingins,  Origine  etc., 
p.  226,  with  similar  contents. 


^  Chevalier,  Cartulaire  de  St  Chaffre,  p.  108. 
2  Bruel,   Cliartes...de    Cluny,   11.  480  (1424). 


3  Marion,  Cartulaires  de  Grenoble,  p.  16. 


46 


The  problem  of  the  two   Humberts 


(I)  (2)  (3) 

Belley;  Manteyer:  White- 
hands  and  brothers,  Bp 
Oddo  and  Burchard.] 

Car.  Reg.  xxiv.i  (7  Oct. 
995 — 28  Oct.  1000),  Theo- 
bald Archbp  of  Vienne 
leases  land  at  Traise  (near 
Belley)  to  £f  Oddo  of 
Belley  and  one  of  his 
brothers  in  succession  ;  re- 
ceives a  niansus  also  in 
Belley  county. 

[Gingins :  three  sons  of 
H.  of  Belley  ;  Manteyer  : 
Whitehands  and  brothers.] 
Car.  Reg.  XXI. ^  (Ap. 
1003),  OddoBp  (of  Belley), 
heingatBocissellum,  makes 
grant  of  leased  church-land 
in  Chatonnay.  Among 
signatories  Ufnbertus  co- 
mes et  uxor  stia,Borcardus. 
[Same  comments  as  xx.] 
Car.  Reg.  xxviii.''  (6 
June  1009),  King  Rudolf 
III  at  St  Maurice  makes 
a  grant  to  the  Guigonids 
of  Albon  by  advice  of 
Queen  Agiltrude,  Arch- 
bishop Burchard  II  of 
Lyons  and  Counts  Rudolf 
and  Uberttis. 

[Manteyer :  Whitehands ; 
Car. :  (wrong  date  995)  H. 
of  Belley^.] 
Car.    Reg.    XLIV.^    (20 

Mar.  1018),  Domnus  Um- 

bertus  comes  acts  as  agent 

in    transfer     of    land     in 

Equestricus    (near    Nyon) 

to  Romainmotier. 

^  Chevalier,  Documents  inidits  des  ix.,  x.,  XI.  siecles  du  Lyonttais,  pp.  15-16. 

^  Marion,  Cartulaires  de  Grenoble,  p.  17.  See  also  for  the  correct  text  of  this 
document  and  for  a  discussion  of  its  meaning,  Labruzzi,  La protocarta  comitate  sabauda, 
Arch.  stor.  ital.  Ser.  v.  Vol.  XLV.  p.  61  (1910). 

*  Chevalier,  Cartulaire  de  St  Andri-le-bas,  Vienne,  No.  38*. 

*  I  omit  Car.  Reg.  XL.  {  =  M.H.P.  Chart.  11.  iii)  as  it  really  dates  from  21  Feb. 
912  (see  Poupardin,  op.  cit.  p.  269,  n.  3,  who  forgets  however  that  in  912  (being  leap 
year)  x.  Kal.  Mart,  fell  on  21  Feb.  not  20  Feb.). 

*  Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p-  25. 


Reeister  of  Humbertine  documents 


47 


(t) 

[Car. :  probably  White- 
hands,  but  it  does  not 
matter  if  H.  of  Belley.] 


(2) 


(3) 


[Car.  Reg.  XLVi.i  (19 
Aug.  1019),  Burchard 
Archbp  of  Vienna  and 
Ulric  his  brother  and  ad- 
vocate give  land  in  the 
Genevois  to  St  Peter's  of 
Vienne  for  souls  of  their 
father  Anselm  and  mother 
Aaldiu.  Among  witnesses 
Amedetis.'\ 
[A.  may  bea  Humbertine.] 


Car.  Reg.  LII.2  (8  Ap. 
1022),  Lambert  Bp  of 
Langres  leases  to  his  friend 
Count  Umhertus  and  his 
S071S  Amedeus  and  Bur- 
cardus  episcopus  land  at 
Ambilly  (near  Geneva), 
and  receives  church  at 
Cuzy  (near  Alby). 

[Car.,  etc. :  H.  of  Belley 
and  sons ;  Manteyer : 
Whitehands  and  sons ; 
Gingins  :  Whitehands  and 
sons.] 

Car.  Reg.  Liii.^  (June 
1023),  Borchardus  and  his 
son  Ayino  give  to  St  Andre 
of  Vienne  (Hugo  being 
Abbot)  church  at  St  Ge7iix 
in  county  of  Belley  pro 
remedio  animarum  of  King 
Gondradus,  King  Rudolf 
III  and  Queen  Ermen- 
garde,  Archbp  Borchardus, 
donniis  Ubertus  corner,  uxor 
ems  Nauchila,  seu  pro  re- 
medio patris  et  matris 
meae  et  comitissae  Ermen- 
gardis  uxoris  meae. 

[Car. :  Whitehands  and 
wife  ;  Aymon  was  nephew 
of  Whitehands  (see  below), 
so  Borchard  is  his  brother ; 

^  Chevalier,  Cariulaire  de  St  AndrJ-le-bas,  Vienne,  p.  256. 

2  Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  (97). 

^  Chevalier,  Cartulaire  de  St  Andr,!-le-bas,  Vimne,  p.  1 54. 


48 


The  problem  of  the  two   Humberts 


(I) 


(2) 

Gingins  :  B.  son  of  H.  of 
Belley  and  wife  Nauchila, 
Aymon  first  cousin  once 
removed  of  Whitehands 
(nepos  ejus)  ;  Vesme  :  H. 
of  Belley  and  wife  ;  Man- 
teyer :  Whitehands,  wife, 
brother  and  nephew.] 

id.  for  Bp  Burcardus. 

[Car. :  Bp  Burchard  son 
of  H.  of  Belley ;  Vesme : 
id.  ;  Gingins  :  Bp  B.  son 
of  Whitehands;  Manteyer: 
Whitehands  and  son.] 

id.  for  Bp  Brocardus. 
[Same  comments.] 


(3) 


Car.  Reg.  LVii.i  (19  Oct. 
1024),  Bp  Burcardus  of 
Aosta  makes  exchange  of 
lands  de  suo  episcopatu  in 
Vald' Aosta  with  consent  of 
Dominus  Count  Umbertus. 

Car.  Reg.  Lix.^  (16  Nov. 
1026),  Bp  Brocardus  oj 
Aosta  and  Donnus  Um- 
bertus  comes  exchange  land 
of  St  John  and  de  cotnitatu 
in  Val  d'Aosta  for  other 
land  in  Val  d'Aosta  with 
Frecius. 

Car.  Reg.  Lxxili.^  (11 
May  994-1049),  Aymo  of 
Petrafortis  saecularem  mi- 
litiam  gerens  gives  to 
Cluny  (where  Odilo  is 
Abbot)  Monterminod  in 
County  of  Savoy.  Sig- 
natories Umbertus  comes, 
Atnedeus  filius  ejus,  Bur- 
cardus, Oddo,  Aymo,  Guif- 
fredus. 

[H.  Whitehands  and 
sons  ;  ?  what  relation  of 
theirs  was  Aymon  of 
Pierreforte  ?] 

Car.  Reg.  LX.*  (11  May 
994—  1049).    Um- 

bertus comes  and  his  sons, 
Amedeus,  Aymo  et  Oddo 
give  to  Cluny  (Odilo  Ab- 
bot) "afe  nostra  kereditate" 
on   and    below   Mont  du 

^  Cibraiio  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  (100).  For  date  see  Schiaparelli,  Charta  Augustana, 
Arch.  stor.  ital.  Ser.  V.  Vol.  xxxix.  p.  336  (1907). 

^  Bollati  in  Misc.  di  stor.  ital.  xvi.  (1877)  P-  676.  For  date  see  Schiaparelli,  op. 
cit.  p.  337. 

2  Guichenon,  Histoire  de  la  viaison  de  Savoie,  Preuves,  p.  5. 

*  Guichenon,  op.  cit.  Preuves,  p.  5. 


Regfister  of  Humbertine  documents 


49 


(I)  {*)  (3) 

Chat  in  county  of  Belley 
and  in  Mallacena  (i.e.  by 
LeBourget).  Other  donors 
also  give. 

[Same  comment.] 
Car.  Reg.  lxl^u  May 
994 —  \Qj,<)),  Hiint- 

bertus  comes  and  his  sons, 
Aniedeus,  Aynio,  and  Uddo 
give  to  Cluny  (Abbot  Odilo 
being  present)  for  benefit  of 
the  monks  at  Maltacena  ( Le 
Bourget)  fish-weir  at  mouth 
of  R.  Leisse  and  a  mansus. 
[Whitehands  and  sons.] 

Car.  Reg.  LXII.^  (9  Mar. 

1026?),  Burchard  II  Arch- 

bp  of  Lyons  and  Abbot  of 

St  Maurice  and  Burchard 

Bp  of  Aosta  and  Provost 

of  St    Maurice    make    a 

grant. 

[Carutti  and  Vesme  :  son 

of  H.  of  Belley  ;  Gingins  : 

son  of  H.  Whitehands.] 
Car.j'?!?^.  LXiii.^(i02i?). 

The  same  make  a  grant. 
[Same  comments.] 
Car.  Reg.   Lxxix.*   (22 

Oct.    1030),   Amedeus  son 

of  Count  Ubertus  and  wife 

Adaelgilda  (Adila),   being 

in  diocese  of  Grenoble  (?  in 

^az/^y), give  to  Cluny  (Odilo 

being  Abbot)  church  of  St 

Maurice    in    pago    Malta- 
cena, with  consent  of  Mal- 

lenus  Bp  of  Grenoble  and 

Humbert  Bp  (of  Valence); 

grant  shared  in  by  Ubertus 

comes    and    Aucilia    uxor 

ejus.       Other     signatories 

Rudolf  III,  Queen  Ermen- 

garde,  Oddo,  Antelmus. 

'  Guichenon,  op.  cit.  Preuves,  p.  6.  *  M.H.P.  Chart.  I.  449. 

'  M.H.P.  Chart.  II.  114.  The  date  is  "anno  Rodolfi  XX.  et  viii."  This  would 
be  Nov.  1020  to  Nov.  102 1,  but  the  reading  seems  strange.  Probably  the  true  reading 
is  XXXViii.,  i.e.  Nov.  1050  to  Nov.   1031. 

*  M.H.P.  I.  490,  Guichenon,  op.  cit.  Preuves,  p.  8.  Charles  de  Cluny,  ill. 
815,  where  the  various  forms  of  dating  are  given.     Cf.  Manteyer,  Paix,  p.  146. 

P.  O.  4 


50 


The  problem  of  the  two   Humberts 


(I) 


Car.  Reg.  Lxxxiii.' 
(1031-2),  Rudolf  III  and 
Queen  Ermengarde,  by 
advice  of  Leger  Archbp 
of  Vienne,  found  priory  of 
Lemenc  in  Savoy,  depend- 
ency of  Abbey  of  Ainay. 
Among  signatories  Count 
Umbertus,  Oddo. 
[Car.:  Whitehands.] 
Car.  Reg.  lxxxiv.*  (19 
Aug.  1031 — 6  Sept.  1032), 
Queen  Ermengarde  founds 
Abbey  of  Talloires,  de- 
pendency of  Abbey  of 
Savigny,  with  the  advice 
of  Leger  Archbp  of  Vienne 
and  others,  among  whom 
Count  Umbertus. 
[Car. :  Whitehands.] 
Car.  Reg.  xc.^  (1032), 
Domnus  Ubertus  comes 
exchanges    land     of     his 


(2) 

[Car. :  Amedeus  son  of 
H.  of  Belley,  and  White- 
hands  with  wife  ;  Gingins  : 
Amedeus  and  his  father 
H.  of  Belley ;  Vesme :  do. ; 
Manteyer  :  Whitehands 
and  son.] 

Car.  Reg.  LXXX.'  (20 
Ap.  \0},o),  Burchard  Pro- 
vost of  St  Maurice  makes 
grant,  assented  to  by  Bur- 
chard  II,  Abbot  of  do. 

Car.  Reg.  Lxxxvi.^  (?), 
Burchard  II  Archbp  of 
Lyons  and  Abbot  of  St 
Maurice  and  Burchard  Bp 
of  Aosta  and  Provost  of 
do.  make  a  grant. 


(3) 


1  M.H.P.  Chart.  11.  118.  Manteyer,  Origines,  p.  471,  dates  this  20  April  1032, 
but  he  has  to  correct  year  of  reign,  day  of  moon  and  year  A. D.  (but  latter  is  wrong 
in  any  case)  ;  1030  needs  the  change  from  "die  jovis"  to  "die  lunae"  [perhaps  mis- 
written  "lunis"]  for  the  day  of  the  week. 

2  M.H.P.  Chart.  I.  499. 

'  Guichenon,  op.  cit.  Preuves,  p.  4. 
*  Bernard,  Cartulaire  de  Savigny,  I.  318. 

^  Schiaparelli,  Archivio  storico  italiano,  1905,  XXXVI.  332.  Here  there  is  a 
facsimile  and  a  discussion  of  date  and  meaning  of  document. 


Register  of  Humbertine  documents 


51 


(I) 

covtitatus  (and  of  the  bene- 
fice  of  Costabile)    in  Val 
d'Aosta  with  monastery  of 
S.  Benigno  in  Aosta. 
[Whitehands.] 


(3) 


(2) 


Car.  Reg.  Lxxii.^  (?), 
some  nobles  give  land  in 
county  of  Belley  to  Abbey 
of  Savigny  (Iterius  being 
Abbot)  in  presence  of 
Aymo  Bp  of  Belley  and 
before  Domimis  Umbertus 
comes  et  filius  ejus  Ame-  » 

deus. 

[Car.  :  in  U.  B.  says 
Whitehands  and  son  Ame- 
deus ;  but  in  Reg.  seems 
to  consider  them  H.  of 
Belley  and  son  A.  of  Bel- 
ley.] 

Cluny,  IV.  2885,  p.  79 
(1032),  Aymo  Bp  of  Belley 
exchanges  church  in  Isle 
(d^Abeati)  in  the  Viennois, 
for  one  at  Charencieu  in 
Sermorens  with  Berlio. 

Cluny,  IV.  2884,  P-  78 
(25  Mar. — 6  Sept.  1032), 
Berlio  gives  church  in 
Isle  (d'Abeau)  to  Cluny. 
Among  signatories  Aymo 
Bp  of  Belley  and  Leger, 
Archbp  of  Vienne. 

[This  is  the  son  of  Ame- 
deus  of  Belley.] 
Car.  Reg,  cvi.2  (3  Nov, 
1036),  Queen  Ermengarde 
and      Count      Humbertus 
present  at  synod  held  by 
Archbp  Leger  at  Vienne. 
Car.  Reg.  cvii.'  (Nov. 
1036),     Maria     gives     to 

^  Bernard,  Cartulaire  de  Savigny,  i.  351.  I  may  note  that  the  Count  Humbert 
here  should  be  Count  of  Belley,  both  from  the  content  of  the  document,  and  because 
he  is  entitled  Domnus,  which  in  these  charters  seems  to  refer  almost  exclusively  to  the 
Count  or  Bishop  of  the  locality.  Hence  I  imagine  Baron  Carutti  would  consider  it 
necessarily  refers  to  Count  Humbert  of  Belley,  unless  he  placed  it  after  the  death  of 
all  laymen  of  the  Belley  line. 

*  Carutti,  Umberto  I  Biancaniano,  p.  193. 

'  Cipolla,  Monumenta  Novaliciensia,  i.  161. 


4—2 


52 


The  problem  of  the  two  Humberts 


(I) 

monastery  of  Novalesa  land 
at  Coise  in  pago  Savogi- 
ense,  which  is  bounded  on 
east  by  terra  regis  sive 
Uberti  comitis  necnon  Ota 
uxori  Sigibodi,  on  south  and 
west  by  terra  regis  et  comi- 
tis, on  north  by  river  Isere. 

Car.  Reg.  cxiii.i  (2  Oct. 
1037),  Synod  of  Romans. 
Among  Bishops  present 
Aymo  of  Sion  and  Mar- 
tigny,  Aymo  of  Belley  and 
Theobald  of  Maurienne. 

Zzx.Reg.  XCI.2  (?io39), 
Queen  Ermengarde  for  the 
remedium  anime  mee  sive 
senioris  mei  Rodulfi,  nec- 
non et  patris  matrisve, 
seu  fratrum  meonim  vel 
ceterorum  propinquorum 
gives  to  Cluny  (Odilo 
being  Abbot)  two  mansi  in 
Genevois  per  advocatum 
meum  cotnitetn  Huviber- 
turn. 

Car.  Reg.  cxx.  (1040)^ 
Domnus  Count  Hubertus 
makes  grant — to  take  effect 


(2) 


(3) 


id.  for  Aymo  of  Belley. 


^  Giraud,  Cartulaire  de  Romatis,  ed.  I.  Preuves,  i.  68-9,  "Sedunensis  atque 
Octodurensis." 

^  Bruel,  Charles. ..de  Cluny,  iv.  95,  Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  (102). 

^  BoUati,  Misc.  star.  ital.  xvi.  p.  635.  The  genuineness  of  this  charter  has  been 
impugned  by  Patrucco,  B.S.S.S.  XVI I.  Miscellanea  Valdosta7ia,  Aosta  dalle  invasiotii 
barbariche  alia  signoria  sabauda,  p.  Ixxx.  n.  2;  specially  for  two  reasons:  (i)  that  the 
sons  of  Count  Humbert  subscribe  without  reference  to  the  order  of  birth,  and  leaving 
a  blank  line  between  Aymon  and  Burchard :  (2)  that  the  confirmation  by  Marquess 
Peter,  written  before  that  of  the  scribe  who  wrote  the  document,  is  very  strange,  as 
he  was  not  born  at  the  date,  and  would  have  to  subscribe  on  a  visit  to  Aosta  later. 
So  too  we  must  suppose  the  charter  sent  round  for  confirmation  by  absent  sons 
to  account  for  (i).  These  reasons  are  strong,  but  the  kind  of  strangeness  emphasized 
seems  hardly  to  accord  with  forgery.  Why  should  the  ephemeral  Peter  be  made  so 
important?  W^hy  did  not  the  forger  place  the  eldest  son  Amedeus  first?  Why  put 
the  affiliation  to  Burchard's  name  alone  ?  Schiaparelli,  Arch.  stor.  ital.  1907,  XXXIX. 
338-9,  decides  in  favour  of  the  genuineness  of  the  charter;  the  subscriptions  of 
Aymon,  Burchard  and  Peter  are  written  in  different  ink  from  that  of  the  rest  of  the 
charter,  Peter's  being  in  different  ink  from  the  other  two.  Schiaparelli  thinks  that 
they  are  all  three  in  different  hands  and  possibly  coeval  with  the  charter.  He  does 
not  seem  inclined  to  the  view  that  the  charter  was  sent  round  for  confirmation ;  and 
says  that  the  space  between  the  officiating  scribe's  subscription  and  the  body  of  the 


Register  of  Humbertine  documents 


53 


(^) 


(3) 


Same  for  Burchard  III. 


(I) 
after  his  death — to  Canons 
of  St  Jean  and  St  Ours, 
Aosta,  confirmed  by  Oddo, 
AmeJeus  comes,  Ay  mo  Se- 
dunensis  episcopus,  Bro- 
chardus  filius  Huberti 
comitis,  Petrus  niarckio 
filius  Oddonis  marchionis 
et  c 07m tissue  Ataletdae. 

Car.  Reg.  cxxiii.^  (21 
Jan.  1042),  Domnus  Uper- 
tus  comes  gives  to  Abbey 
St  Chaffre  churches  at  Les 
£chelles  ' '  de  hereditate 
mea  que  michi  ex  conquisto 
obvenerunt."  Signatories 
Brochardus  archiepiscopus, 
Aimo  episcopus,  Ameeus 
(sic),  Oddo  and  others. 

[Manteyer :  Whitehands 
and  sons  ;  Gingins  :  do. ; 
Car. :  Whitehands  and  sons 
except  Burchard  whose 
place  is  taken  by  Archbp 
Burchard  III.] 

Car.  Reg.  cxxv.^  (10 
June  1042),  Umbertus  comes 
and  his  sons  Amedeus  and 
Oddo  give  churches  and 
land  at  Les  Echelles  (taliter 
concedimus  qualiter  lex 
nostra  concedere  precipit) 
to  Abbey  of  St  Chaffre  (and 
St  Laurence  at  Grenoble). 
Signatories  Brochardus 
archiepiscopus,  Amedeus 
comes,  Oddo  and  others. 

[Same  comments.] 

charter  has  its  parallels.  Accepting  his  conclusions,  I  may  remark  that  the  evidence 
of  the  affiliation  of  Aymon  and  Burchard  is  not  weakened,  as  the  names,  if  not 
genuine,  were  inserted  close  to  the  time  and  would  only  be  so  inserted  because  of 
their  relationship  to  Humbert. 

'  Marion,  Cartulaires...de  Grenoble,  p.  31-  The  date  is  rather  a  puzzle,  for  in  1042, 
21  Jan.  was  not  the  25th  but  the  6th  day  of  the  moon,  and  then  Jan.  1042  ab  incarn. 
Dni.  should  usually  mean  Jan.  1043,  ^^^  '"  '043  ^^  moon  was  almost  at  new  again. 
But  I  note  that  in  1041,  11  Jan.  was  exactly  the  25th  day  of  moon.  Perhaps  1041 
(or  1043)  is  the  real  date  of  the  charter. 

*  Marion,  op.  cit.  p.  29.  Guichenon's  text.  Hist,  de  la  maison  de  Savoie,  Preuves, 
p.  7,  adds  Aymon,  and  Mallenus,  Bp  of  Grenoble,  before  "Amedeus  comes."  No 
doubt  they  are  erroneous  insertions. 


Same  for  Burchard  III. 


54  The  problem  of  the  two  Humberts 

<')  (^)  (3) 

Car.  Reg.  cxxvii.'  (26 
Mar.  1044),  Aymon  Bp  of 
Sion  at  Synod  of  Besan9on. 
Gremaud,  M.  D.  R. 
XVIII.  338  (23  Dec.  1043), 
Aymon  Bp  of  Sion  makes 
grant  through  Oiidolricus 
advocate  of  bishopric. 

Car.  Reg.  cxxxi.*  (22 
Feb.  1046),  Aymon  Bp  of 
Sion,  Provost  of  St  Alau- 
rice,  makes  grant  in  latter 
capacity  by  Advocate  Bozo. 

Car.  Reg.  cxxxil.*  (14 
June  1043 (?)  or  i047(?)), 
Count  Hutnbert'a.ViA  Teobald 
Bp  of  Maurienne  make 
grant  of  Cuines,  etc.,  to 
the  Canons  of  Maurienne. 
Count  Humbert  gives  do- 
minicatura,  Bp  fetiotaria. 
Among  signatories  Aymo 
nepos  ejus  and  Odo. 

Car.  Reg.  cxxxill.*  (?), 
Count  Umbertus  gives  to 
Canons  of  Maurienne  land 
at  Cuines,  etc.,  also  omnia 
quae  Theubaldus  eps.  per 
donationem  comitis  tenere 
videbatur.  Among  signa- 
tories Aymo  nepos  eius  and 
Odo. 

Car.  Reg.  cxxxv.^  (?), 
Aymo,  very  ill,  gives  \.o  St  . 
Genix  (where  h\s  father  is 
buried)  land  near  St  Genix 
for  souls  of  his  father  and 
mother,      Bp   Odo,    Count 

1  Dunod's  Hist,  de  V Eglise  de  Besan^on,  I.  Preuves,  p.  xlix. 

2  M.H.P.  Chart.  II.  142. 

•^  Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  (95).  The  date  is  difficult — 14  June,  regnante  Henrico 
Imp.  viii.  Luna  iii. ;  Manteyer,  Origines,  p.  400,  places  it  in  1043,  as  Luna  in. 
would  agree  with  14  June  that  year.  Carutti,  Umb.  Bianc.  p.  108  and  Reg.  dates  it 
1046,  since  if  Henry  Hi's  reign  is  calculated  from  his  election  in  October  1038,  his 
eighth  year  in  Burgundy  ran  from  Oct. -Nov.  1045 — Oct. -Nov.  1046.  But  he  is  styled 
Emperor,  a  title  he  only  obtained  Christmas  1046;  so  it  would  seem  we  must  reckon 
the  reign  here  from  Conrad's  death,  4  June  1039  (they  would  hardly  count  from  the 
exact  day  of  death) :    thus  the  eighth  year  ran  from  June  1046  to  June  1047. 

■*  Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  6:  Besson,  ed.  II.  p.  336. 

*  Chevalier,  Cartulaire  de  St  Andri-le-bas,   Vienne,  p.  156. 


(I) 


Aymon  and  his  other  rela- 
tions. Among  signatories 
Domnus  Huberttis  comes, 
Domntts  Amedeus  comes, 
Domnus  At  mo  Bp  of  Sion. 
Ego  Odo  marchio  recog- 
novi  et  laudavi. 


Register  of  Humbertine  documents 

(2)  (3) 


55 


Car.  Reg.  cxxxvii.^  (?), 

Aymo    son    of   Burchard 

and  Countess  Ermengarde 

gives  to  St  Genix,  where 

his   father's    grave   is,    in 

county     and     diocese     of 

Beiley  land  near  St  Genix 

ex  hereditate  sua. 

[Placed  here,  as  (if  we 

omit     Gingins'     mistake) 

there    is    no    mention    of 

either  disputed  line.] 
Cax.Reg.  cxLii.2(io5o), 
Pope  Leo  IX  reforms  St 
Maurice  Agaune,  of  which 
Aymon  Bp  oj  Sion  is 
Abbot. 

Car.  Reg.  cxLiii.^  (Mar. 
— }wnQ  \o^i)y  Odo  viarchio 
gives  land  in  Tarentaise  to 
Canons  of  Tarentaise  pro 
remedio  animae  patris  tnei 
Humberttis  comes  et  prop- 
ter animam  meam. 

Car.     Reg.    cxxxviii.'' 

(i8  Dec.  105 1? or  1045?), 
Amedeus  count  of  Beiley 
gives  a  mansus  to  Canons 
of  Beiley. 

Car.  Reg.  LXXXi.*  (?), 
Domnus  Count  Amedeus 
and  his  wife  Adela  give  to 
St  Maurice  land  at  foot 
of  Mont  du  Chat  in  Malta- 
cena  in  episcopatu  Grati- 
anopolitano,    in    comitatu 

^  Chevalier,  Cartulaire  de  St  Andr^-le-bas,  Vienne,  p.  157. 

2  M.H.P.  Chart.  11.  148. 

3  M.H.P.  Chart,  i.  572. 

''  Guigue,  Petit  Cartulaire  de  St  Sulpice  en  Bugey,  p.  26 ;  for  date  see  Manteyer, 
Origines,  p.  408.  But  if  more  stress  is  laid  on  Henry  III  being  styled  King  and  not 
Emperor,  than  on  the  correctness  of  the  age  of  the  moon,  the  year  will  be  1045. 

"  Guichenon,  Hist,  de  la  maison  de  Savoie,  Preuves,  p.  8. 


The  problem  of  the  two   Humberts 


(0  W  (3) 

eomm    pro   requie    Uberti 
filii. 

Car.  Reg.  LXXiv.^  (?), 
Amedeus  comes  and  his 
wife  Adela  give  land  in 
coitnty  of  Belley  de  heredi- 
tate  sua  to  Cluny. 

Car.  Keg.  CXLI.^  (?), 
Aymon  Bp  of  Belley  gives 
church-land  leased  to  his 
father  Amedeus  in  cotmty 
of  Belley  back  to  cathedral, 
St  Jean,  of  Belley. 
Car.  Reg.  CXLV.^  (12 
June  1052),  Aymon  Bp  of 

Sion   gives   to  Canons   of  » 

Sion,  by  advocate  (ad  hoc) 
Count  Oudalricus,  lands  in 
Vallais  inherited  from  late 
avunculus  Count  Oudal- 
ricus and  other  relatives. 

Gremaud,  M.  D.  R. 
XVIII.  346'',  Count  Odal- 
ricus  of  Lenzburg  gives  to 
A.  Bp  of  Sion  land  bought 
by  his  father  and  mother  at 
Chateau-neuf  in  Vallais. 

Car.  Reg.  CXLVI.^  (13 
Mar.  1053),  Aymon  Bp  of 
Sion  at  Ravenna. 

Car.  Reg.  CXLVii.^  (13 
March  1054),  Aymon  Bp 
of  Sion  makes  exchange 
through  Upoldus  advocate 
of  the  bishopric. 

Guigue,  Cartul.  de  St 
Sulpice  en  Bugey,  p.  27  (?), 
Aymon  restores  forest  of 
Rothone  to  Canons  of 
Belley  in  presence  of  Odo 
marchio  at  demand  of 
Bp  Gosserannus  of  Belley 
and  canons. 

1  Chevalier,  Diplomatique  de  Bourgogne  de  Pierre  de  Rivaz,  p.  73. 

-  Guigue,  Petit  Cartulaire  de  St  Sulpice  en  Bugey,  p.  26. 

'^  Gremaud,  M.D.R.  xviii.  340.     The  charter  is  dated  at  Rome. 

*  Could  this  charter  really  refer  to  Bishops  Amedeus  or  Antelm  in  the  eleventh 
century? 

^   Mabillon,  Annales  Ordinis  S.  Benedicti,  IV.  App.  p.  742. 

*  Gremaud,  M.D.R.  xviii.  338. 


Register  of  Humbertine  documents 


57 


(i) 


Car.j?<?^.cxix.i  (13  Oct. 
1057),  Biircardus  archie- 
piscopus  et  S.  Alauritii 
abbas  grants  lease  in  the 
Genevois  by  his  advocate 
Goto. 


(3) 


Car.  Reg.  CL.-  (6  Mar. 
1058),  Pope  Stephen  X  con- 
firms grant  of  Le  Bourget 
to  Cluny  made  by  Count 
Amedeits  with  consent  of 
his  brothers.,  Burcardus 
and  Odo. 


Car.  Reg.  CXLIV.*  (1067 
-8),  Burcardus  abbas  et 
prepositus  S.  Mauritii 
makes  grant  per  manura 
Ottonis  advocati  S.  Mau- 
ritii. 

Car.  Reg.  CLXVIII.*  (3 
Jan.  1069),  Burcardus 
Agaunensis  abbatiae  abbas 
and  Anselm  the  Provost 
make  a  grant  to  Otto, 
advocate  of  St  Maurice. 


Car.  Reg.  CCCLXXII.^ 
(n  June  1 189),  Thomas, 
Count  of  Maurienne,  con- 
firms grants  of  his  ancestors 
to  Canons  of  Maurienne, 
among  them  that  of  Count 
Humbert  his  abavus. 


We  have  now  completed  the  series  of  relevant  documents.  The 
first,  as  we  shall  see  later,  is  of  importance  as  showing  a  Count  Hum- 
bert and  a  Count  Amadeus  living  c.  970.  The  second  (Car.  Reg.  xi., 
above,  p.  45)  shows  a  Count  Humbert  apparently  in  a  position  of 
authority  at  Mions  by  Chandieu  in  the  Lyonnais.  A  block  of  later 
Savoyard  property  was  later  round  this  very  spot^  We  may  therefore 
accept  the  statement  that  this  Count  Humbert  was  a  "  Humbertine." 
No  more  precise  relationship  appears  from  the  document. 


^  AI.H.P.  Chart.  11.  130:  for  the  date  see  below,  p.  64,  n.  1. 

''■  Migne,  Patrologia,  CXLIII.  879. 

'  M.H.P.  Chart.  11.  153:  for  the  date  see  Manteyer,  Origines,  pp.  524-5. 

*  Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  34 :  for  the  date  see  Manteyer,  loc.  cit. 

*  Billet  et  Albrieux,  Charles  de  Maurienne,  p.  38. 

*  See  below,  p.  76. 


58  The  problem  of  the  two   Humberts 

Next  we  come  to  a  group  of  three  charters  (pp.  45-6)  of  Bishop 
Oddo  of  Belley  (1000,  1003).  The  Bishop  has  brothers  (Car.  Reg. 
XXIV.);  he  resides  at  Bocozel  (near  La  Cote  St  Andre);  he  has  lands 
at  Chatonnay  (id.  xx.,  xxi.)  and  in  the  county  of  Belley  {id.  xxiv.) 
where  he  also  obtains  a  very  profitable  lease.  These  are  all  in  then  and 
later  Humbertine  land^  As  to  who  his  brothers  were,  Humbert  (who 
in  1003  has  a  wife  and  is  a  Count)  and  Burchard  appear  at  the  head  of 
the  signatories  in  both  Oddo's  own  charters.  There  is  therefore  a  sus- 
picion that  they  were  the  brothers.     Thus  the  conjectural  result  is  : 


I 1 1 

Oddo  Burchard  Humbert 

Bp  of  Belley  (?)  Count 

1000,  1003  (?) 

That  they  were  Humbertines  admits  of  but  little  doubt  in  view  of  the 
localities  involved. 

The  next  document  (Car.  Reg.  xxviii.,  above,  p.  46)  only  shows  a 
Count  Humbert  as  influential  at  court  in  1009.  The  next  (Car.  Reg. 
XLiv.,  above,  p.  46)  shows  a  Count  Humbert  officiating  as  agent  near 
Nyon  (north  of  Geneva)  and  presumably  holding  land  there.  The 
next  again  (Car.  Reg.  xlvi.,  above,  p.  47)  tells  us  nothing  of  the 
Humbertines. 

The  next  (Car.  Reg.  lii.,  above,  p.  47)  shows  us  a  Count  Humbert 

with  his  sons  Amadeus  and  Bishop  Burchard,  owning  land  in  the  south, 

and  obtaining  land  in   the  north,   of  the    Genevois  in    1022.     Thus 

we  have : 

Humbert 
Count  1022 

r ^ n 

Amadeus  Burchard 

Bishop 

Then  there  comes  forward  in  Car.  Reg.  Liii.  (above,  p.  47)  a  Burchard, 
with  his  son  Aymon  and  wife  Countess  Ermengarde,  possessed  of  land 
at  St  Genix  in  the  county  of  Belley.  He  is  connected  with  the  royal 
house,  and  with  a  Count  Humbert  who  has  a  wife  Nauchila  (i.e.  Auchila 
with  an  honorific  prefix),  who  should  be  Count  of  Belley,  as  he  is  called 
donnus,  which  in  these  charters  seems  mostly  reserved  for  the  Count  of 
the  locality  of  the  charter'.  Burchard's  favourite  monastery  is  St  Andre- 
le-bas,  Vienne.     There  results  : 

^  Cf.  Carutti,  Umberto  1  Biancamano,  p.  93 ;  Manteyer,  Notes  additioimelles, 
pp.  287-8,  and  see  below  for  later  charters.  See  below,  Section  iv.  of  this  chapter 
under  Sermorens  and  Belley. 

-  Cf.  the  Aostan  charters  (Car.  Reg.  LVii.,  Lix.,  xc,  cxx.),  but  Humbert  could 
hardly  have  been  Count  of  Equestricus  (Car.  Reg.  XLIV.,  above,  p.  46),  cf.  below, 
p.  85. 


Genealogical  data  from  the  documents  59 

Burchard  =  Ermengarde 
I      Countess 
Conrad     =  |  Ubertus  =  Nauchila 

King  Aymon  Count 

> 

Burchard  II 

Archbp  of 

Lyons 

Rudolf  III  =  Ermengarde 
King 

We  now  remove  to  Aosta.  On  the  19th  October  1024  (Car.  Reg. 
Lvii.,  above,  p.  48)  Bishop  Burchard  exchanges  episcopal  land,  with  the 
consent  of  the  Aostan  Count,  Domnus  Umbertus  comes.  The  latter, 
as  we  know,  was  Humbert  Whitehands.  It  would  be  tempting  to  con- 
sider the  Bishop  the  same  as  the  Bishop  Burchard  of  1022.  On  the 
i6th  November  1026  the  same  Bishop  and  Count  make  a  similar  exchange 
(Car.  Reg.  Lix.,  above,  p.  48). 

Then  the  scene  shifts  to  the  district  of  the  Belley  charters.  Aymon 
of  Pierreforte  (Car.  Reg.  lxxiii.,  above,  p.  48)  makes  a  grant  of  Monter- 
minod  in  the  county  of  Savoy  to  Cluny.  Among  the  signatories  are 
Count  Humbert  and  his  son  Amadeus,  and  also  Burchard,  Oddo, 
Aymon  and  Geoffrey.  The  latter  name  occurs  frequently  in  the  Hum- 
bertine  charters  and  may  possibly  be  that  of  a  kinsman  or  dependant 
(e.g.  seneschal),  or  both.  Though  only  Amadeus  is  called  Humbert's 
son,  we  need  not  hesitate  to  consider  the  others  as  such  :  in  fact  owner- 
ship was  as  much  a  matter  of  family  as  personal  right  and  it  was  as  well 
to  get  the  agnates'  signatures  to  a  grant.     Thus  we  have : 

Aymon  Humbert  Whitehands 

of  Pierreforte  Count 

r -r ^ r 1 

Amadeus  Burchard  Oddo  Aymon 

(?)  (?)  (?) 

These  must  be  Whitehands  and  his  four  sons.  Let  us  note  that  we  find 
them  and  their  connection  Aymon  in  Savoy  proper.  It  is  a  pity  that 
there  is  no  date,  but  perhaps  1020-30  cannot  be  far  out.  None  of  the 
sons  has  a  title  given  him  in  the  charter. 

The  next  charter  comes  from  the  borders  of  Savoy  proper  and 
Belley  (Car.  Reg.  lx.,  above,  pp.  48-9).  Count  Humbert  and  his  three 
sons,  Amadeus,  Aymon  and  Oddo,  give  to  Cluny  land  etc.  "  de  nostra 
hereditate  "  on  and  below  Mont  du  Chat,  part  being  in  Belley  and  part 
in  Savoy.  Other  nobles  of  the  district  contribute  land  to  the  great 
Abbey.  Here  again  by  common  consent  we  have  Humbert  White- 
hands  ;   Aymon's  presence  as  a  son  being  the  criterion. 

Humbert  Whitehands 

, -H -, 

Amadeus  Aymon  Oddo 


6o  The  problem  of  the  two   Humberts 

Again  the  same  genealogy  appears  in  Car.  Reg.  lxi.  (above,  p.  49) 
dealing  with  property  at  the  mouth  of  R.  Leisse  in  Savoy  proper.  One 
would  like  to  know  on  what  journey  of  Abbot  Odilo  to  Rome  this  was 
transacted.     The  Cluniac  priory  of  Le  Bourget  was  founded  by  now. 

Car.  Reg.  lxii.  and  lxiii.  (above,  p.  49)  merely  show  us  Burchard, 
Bishop  of  Aosta,  as  Provost  of  St  Maurice,  while  his  uncle  Burchard  II, 
Archbishop  of  Lyons,  is  Abbot. 

Of  quite  special  importance  is  Car.  Reg.  lxxix.  (above,  p.  49). 
Herein  Count  Amadeus  and  his  wife  Adalegilda  or  Adela  make  a  gift 
of  the  church  St  Maurice  of  Maltacena  (Matassine  by  Le  Bourget)  to 
Cluny.  This  was  not  the  actual  foundation  of  Le  Bourget  Priory  (see 
below,  p.  64),  but  it  can  hardly  be  far  removed  in  date  since  this  seems 
to  be  the  Priory  Church.  Amadeus  calls  himself  the  son  of  Count 
Humbert,  and  a  Count  Humbert,  with  his  wife  Auciha,  shares  in  the 
grant.  It  is  done  in  Rudolf  Ill's  court  and  the  latter  and  Queen 
Ermengarde  sign.  That  Humbert  and  Aucilia  are  the  connections  of 
Burchard  in  Car.  Reg.  liii.  (above,  pp.  58-9)  one  cannot  doubt.  I  will 
leave  the  question  of  the  identity  with  Humbert  Whitehands  or  not  till 
later ;  but  here  I  must  state  that  I  cannot  accept  Carutti's  view  that  the 
Count  Humbert,  father  of  Count  Amadeus,  is  a  different  person  from 
the  signatory  Count  Humbert.  Not  only  is  the  former  not  styled 
quondam  or  bonae  memoriae,  as  he  would  be  if  dead  (and  Carutti's  view 
demands  that  his  death  should  have  already  occurred);  but  Humbert 
and  Aucilia  join  in  the  grant  at  the  end — "  Hii  et  hae  (i.e.  Amadeus 
and  Adela,  Humbert  and  Aucilia)  banc  donationem  fecerunt";  although 
they  are  not  mentioned  in  the  body  of  the  grant  as  grantors \  This  is 
natural  for  the  father  and  mother  of  the  grantors,  but  surely  no  head- 
ship of  the  family  would  account  for  such  an  exercise  of  authority. 
Thus  we  have  on  the  22nd  October  1030  the  following  genealogy: 

Humbert  =  Aucilia 
Count     I 

, \ 


1 

Adela  =  Amadeus  Oddo 

Count  (?) 

I  may  remark  that  Le  Bourget  continued  to  be  a  favourite  founda- 
tion of  the  Savoyards,  even  after  Amadeus  III  erected  Hautecombe  on 
the  Lac  du  Bourget  as  the  family  Abbey. 


^  Even  if  the  charter,  only  known  through  a  false  original,  has  been  rehandled 
later  (see  Cibrario  e  Promis,  Sigilli  dd principi  di  Savoia,  p.  5),  this  is  most  unlikely 
to  be  an  interpolation. 


Genealogical  data  from  the  documents  6i 

Car.  Reg.  lxxx.  and  lxxxvi.  (above,  p.  50)  have  an  interest,  as  in 
one  Burchard  II  and  Burchard  III  receive  their  episcopal  titles  and  in 
the  other  not. 

Car.  Reg.  lxxxiii.  (above,  p.  50)  shows  us  a  Count  Humbert  closely 
connected  with  the  court  c.  103 1-2  and  interested  in  Savoy. 

Car.  Reg.  Lxxxiv.  (above,  p.  50)  shows  a  Count  Humbert  again  as  a 
person  of  great  weight  with  Queen  Ermengarde  and  specially  interested 
in  dealings  on  the  borders  of  the  Genevois  and  Savoy. 

If  these  are  presumably  mentions  of  Humbert  Whitehands,  Car. 
Reg.  xc.  (above,  pp.  50-1)  introduces  him  certainly  in  his  office  of  Count 
of  Aosta.     Its  date  is  1032. 

Car.  Reg.  Lxxii.  (above,  p-  51)  gives  us  a  little  genealogy  again.    In 

this  fragment  (for  it  forms  the  conclusion  of  another  charter  [?  Lxxxiv.] ') 

several  nobles  give  La  Burbanche  in  the  county  of  Belley  to  Savigny 

Abbey  c.  103 1-2,     They  do  it  in  the  presence  of  Bishop  Aymon  of 

Belley  and  before  domnus  Count  Humbert  and  the  latter's  son  Ama- 

deus.     The  inference  is  that  Humbert  here  is  Count  of  Belley,     Thus 

we  have  : 

Humbert  Aymon 

Ct  of  Belley  Bp  of  Belley 

c.  1031-2 

I 
Amadeus 

Aymon,  Bishop  of  Belley,  appears  again  in  Cluny  iv.  2885  and 
2884  (above,  p.  51),  where  he  exchanges  churches  in  the  Viennois  and 
Sermorens  with  Berlio,  whose  name  is  found  elsewhere  in  Humbertine 
documents.     The  date  is   1032. 

In  Car.  Reg.  cvi.  (above,  p.  51),  we  find  Count  Humbert  with  the 
widowed  Queen  Ermengarde  at  a  Synod  of  Vienne  in  1036, 

In  Car.  Reg.  cvii.  (above,  pp.  51-2),  dated  November  1036,  we  find 
Count  Humbert  owning  land,  next  to  that  of  the  King  (Conrad  II), 
at  Coise,  then  in  Savoy  proper'.     Presumably  he  was  Count  of  Savoy, 

•  See  Manteyer,  Origines,  p.  392. 

*  So  in  charter.  Cf.  Manteyer,  Origines,  p.  395.  Carutti,  Umberto  Biancatnano, 
p.  104,  states  that  it  was  land  in  Maurienne  which  was  bounded  by  Count  Humbert's. 
But  I  cannot  find  authority  for  this  in  the  text.  His  reason  probably  is  that  Coise  lay 
in  the  diocese,  though  not  in  the  ancient  county  of  Maurienne. 


62  The  problem  of  the  two   Humberts 

Car.  Reg.  cxiii.  (above,  p.  52)  only  shows  us  Aymon  Bishop  of  Sion 
and  Martigny\  Aymon  Bishop  of  Belley  and  Theobald  Bishop  of 
Maurienne  present  at  the  Synod  of  Romans  in  October  1037. 

Car.  Reg.  xci.  (above,  p.  52),  dated  c.  1039,  gives  us  Count  Hum- 
bert as  advocate  of  Queen  Ermengarde  in  the  Genevois. 

Car.  Reg.  cxx.  (above,  pp.  52-3)  is  the  remarkable  1040  grant  of 
Humbert  Whitehands  in  Aosta.  Here  we  find  Oddo,  Count  Amadeus 
and  Aymon  Bishop  of  Sion,  all  evidently  on  the  same  footing  as  sons 
of  the  grantor,  while  an  untitled  Burchard  is  expressly  styled  so.  The 
following  genealogy  results  : 

Humbert  Whitehands  1040 

(?)  (?)       I  (?) 

I 1 ^ 1 1 

Adelaide  =  Oddo  Amadeus  Aymon  Burchard 

Ctess    I  Mqss  Count  Bp  of  Sion 

Peter,  Mqss 

The  next  charter,  Car.  Reg.  cxxiii.  (above,  p.  53),  dated  21  January 
1042^,  takes  us  back  to  Sermorens.  In  it  "  Domnus"  Count  Humbert 
gives  the  church  of  St  Marie  of  Les  Echelles  etc.  to  the  monastery  of 
St  Chaffre,  for  the  latter's  dependency  St  Laurence  of  Grenoble.  They 
are  described  as  "  de  hereditate  mea  quae  mihi  ex  conquisto  obvene- 
runt."  The  charter  is  subscribed  by  Archbishop  Burchard  (HI),  Aymon 
Bishop  (of  Sion),  Ameeus  (sic)  and  Oddo  in  the  order  named  as  well  as 
by  others.  It  is  admitted  in  both  genealogical  schemes  that  Humbert 
Whitehands  and  some  of  his  sons  occur  here;  but  according  to  Carutti 
and  Di  Vesme  Burchard  III  is  Whitehands'  first  cousin.  No  relation- 
ships are  actually  mentioned. 

After  a  few  months,  on  the  10  June  1042  (Car.  Reg.  cxxv.,  above, 

P-  53))  Count  Humbert  Whitehands  and  his  sons  Amadeus  and  Oddo 

give  the  churches  of  Les  Echelles  and  a  mansus  to  St  Chaffre  and 

St  Laurence.     The  signatories  are  headed  by  Archbishop   Burchard ; 

and  among  them  Amadeus  takes  the  style  of  Count.     Thus  from  these 

two  charters  we  have  in  admitted  relationships : 

Humbert  Whitehands 
Count  (?  of  Savoy)  (?) 

^ , 


Burchard  HI  Amadeus  Oddo  Aymon 

Archbp  Count  Bp  (of  Sion) 

(of  Lyons,  deposed) 

^  "  Sedunensis  atque  Octodurensis."  There  had  been  some  shifting  of  the  see  (cf. 
Gams,  p.  312).  The  reference  of  Gallia  Christiana  (see  Car.  Reg.  cxiii.)  to  St  Maurice 
is  due  to  an  erroneous  supposition  that  Octodurensis  meant  the  Abbey.  See  p.  52, 
n.  I,  and  p.  29,  n.  3  above. 

-  For  discussion  of  possible  real  date,  see  above,  p.  53,  n.  i. 


Genealogical  data  from  the  documents  63 

Next  come  two  grants  of  Aymon  of  Sion.  In  Gremaud,  M.D.R. 
xviii.  338  (above,  p.  54),  23  December  1043,  he  makes  a  grant 
through  Ulric  the  advocate  of  the  Bishopric  of  Sion.  In  Car.  Reg.  cxxxi. 
(above,  p.  54),  22  February  1046,  he,  being  Provost  of  St  Maurice  as 
well  as  bishop,  makes  a  grant  in  the  former  capacity  through  his 
advocate  Bozo. 

In  Car.  Reg.  cxxxii.  (above,  p.  54),  in  June  1047',  Humbert  White- 
hands  appears  for  the  first  time  as  Count  of  Maurienne,  from  whom  the 
Bishop  of  Maurienne,  Theobald,  holds  a  benefice".  He  adds  to  the 
gift  which  he  then  made  to  the  Canons  of  Maurienne  in  an  undated 
charter  (Car.  Reg.  cxxxiii.,  above,  p.  54),  and  confirms  the  first  donation, 
mentioning  that  the  Bishop  had  held  it  from  his  grant.  Both  charters 
are  signed  by  his  nephew  Aymon,  and  an  Oddo;  but  one  may  doubt  if 
his  son  is  meant  by  the  latter  name.     Genealogy: 

I 1 

N.  N.  Humbert  Whitehands 

I  Ct  of  Maurienne 

Aymon  104  7 

Doubtless  it  is  the  nephew  Aymon,  who  made  the  following  two 
charters  when  dying  (Car.  Reg.  cxxxv.,  cxxxvii.,  above,  pp.  54-5). 
He  is  the  son  of  Burchard  and  Countess  Ermengarde.  He  gives  land 
at  and  by  St  Genix  where  his  father  is  buried  in  the  county  and 
diocese  of  Belley,  to  St  Andre-le-bas  of  Vienne,  from  which  the 
church  of  St  Genix  depends.  He  does  it  for  the  souls  of  his  father 
and  mother  and  of  Bishop  Oddo  (of  Belley  doubtless).  Count  Aymon 
and  his  other  relatives.  The  signatories  of  cxxxv.  are:  Domnus  Count 
Humbert,  Domnus  Count  Amadeus,  Domnus  Bishop  Aymon  of  Sion, 
with  Marquess  Oddo  as  an  addition.  Here  we  need  not  hesitate  to 
recognize  Whitehands  and  his  family  : 

Burchard  =  Ermengarde  Humbert  Whitehands 

I     Countess  Count 


I  I 1 — '  I 

Aymon  Amadeus  I             Aymon                      Oddo 

nephew  of  Count              Bp  of  Sion                 Marquess 
Whitehands 

Car.  Reg.  cxLii.  (above,  p.  55)  proves  that  by  1050  Aymon  of  Sion 
had  been  promoted  Abbot  of  St  Maurice.  Apparently  the  office  of 
abbot  had  been  left  vacant  since  the  death  of  Burchard  II  of  Lyons^ 

^  See  for  discussion  of  date,  above,  p.  54,  n.  3. 

'^  See  for  discussion  of  Manteyer's  views  on  this  point,  below,  Section  iv.  under 
Maurienne. 

3  This  follows  from  the  date  I  give  to  Car.  Reg.  cxix.:  see  below,  p.  64,  n.  ^. 


64  The  problem  of  the  two   Humberts 

In  Car.  Reg.  cxLiii.  (above,  p.  55)  (March — June  105 1),  Marquess 
Oddo  appears  this  time  as  a  landowner  in  Tarentaise  and  son  of  Count 
Humbert.     Hence : 

Humbert  Whitehands,  Count 

Oddo,  Marquess 

We  next  come  to  a  series  of  Count  Amadeus  of  Belley's  charters. 
In  Car.  Reg.  cxxxviii.  (?  December  105 1)  (above,  p.  55)  he  makes  a 
grant  as  Count  of  Belley  to  the  Canons  of  Belley.  In  Car.  Reg.  Lxxxi. 
(?)  (above,  p.  55)  he  and  his  wife  Adela  make  a  grant  of  land  at 
Maltacena  at  the  foot  of  Mont  du  Chat  (i.e.  in  Savoy  proper)  in  their 
county  to  St  Maurice  of  Le  Bourget  for  the  repose  of  their  dead  son 
Humbert.  In  Car.  Reg.  lxxiv.  (?)  (above,  p.  56)  Count  Amadeus  and 
Adela  likewise  give  land  de  hereditate  sua  in  the  county  of  Belley 
to  Cluny.  Finally  in  Car.  Reg.  cxli.  (1051-1060)  (above,  p.  56)  we 
find  Aymon  Bishop  of  Belley  restoring  to  his  see  some  land  in  the 
county  of  Belley  leased  to  his  father  Amadeus.  In  view  of  Car. 
Reg.  Lxxii.  it  is  unreasonable  to  suppose  two  Amadeuses  here.     So 

we  have : 

Amadeus  =  Adela 
Ct  of  Belley  I 
and  Savoy   | 

I ^ 1 

Humbert  Aymon 

ob.  vi.  pat.  Bp  of  Belley 

Car.  Reg.  cxlv.  (above,  p.  56),  of  the  12th  June  1052,  shows  us 
Aymon  of  Sion  giving  to  the  Canons  of  Sion,  by  his  advocate  ad  hoc 
Count  Ulric,  lands  in  Vallais  inherited  from  his  late  avunculus  Count 
Ulric  and  other  relatives.     Thus  we  have : 

Ulric  N.  N. 

Count  I 

Aymon 
Bp  of  Sion 

It  is  possible  that  the  advocate  here  was  the  Count  Ulric  of  Lenzburg 
of  Gremaud,  M.D.R.  xviii.  346  (above,  p.  56). 

Bishop  Aymon  of  Sion  was  at  Rome  in  June  1052,  and  in  March 
1053  he  was  at  Ravenna.  In  March  1054  he  was  making  a  grant  at 
Sion  through  Upold,  advocate  of  the  Bishopric  (Car.  Reg.  cxlvii., 
above,  p.  56).     On  the  13th  July  1054  he  died^ 

In  1057  the  deposed  Burchard  III  appears,  in  succession  to  Aymon, 
as  Abbot  of  St  Maurice,  with  Octo  for  his  advocate^  (above,  p.  57). 

^  See  above,  p.  29,  n.  3. 

2  The  charter,  Car.  Keg.  cxix.  (hitherto  ascribed  to  1039),  '^  dated  "  ill.  Id.  Oct., 
Luna  undecima,"  King  Henry's  second  year  in  LJurj^undy.     Now  Henry  IH's  second 


Genealogical  data  from  the  documents  65 

Guigue,  Sf  Sidpice,  p.  27  (above,  p.  56),  shows  Marquess  Oddo  as 
Count  of  Belley.  Car.  Reg.  cl.  (above,  p.  57)  is  more  important  as 
therein  Pope  Stephen  X  on  the  6th  March  1058  confirms  the  lost 
charter  of  the  foundation  of  Le  Bourget  Priory  by  Count  Amadeus 
with  the  consent  of  his  brothers  Burchard  and  Oddo.     Thus  we  have  : 


I 1 1 

Amadeus  Burchard  Oddo 

Count 

In  1067-8  and  in  January  1069,  a  Burchard,  Abbot  of  St  Maurice, 
with  his  advocate  Otto,  again  comes  to  light  (above,  p.  57). 

The  last  document  (Car.  Reg.  ccclxxii.,  above,  p.  57)  merely  proves 
Humbert  Count  of  Maurienne  to  be  Humbert  Whitehands. 

Now  out  of  these  scattered  notices,  two  genealogical  trees  are  easily 
formed.  The  question  is  :  are  they  identical  or  do  they  concern  two 
branches  of  the  same  family  ? 

To  form  the  first  tree,  called  by  Carutti,  Savoy-Belley,  we  take 
Car.  Reg.  lxxix.  (p.  49),  lxxii.  (p.  51),  cxxxvni.  (p.  55),  lxxxi. 
(p.  55),  Lxxiv.  (p.  56),  cxLi.  (p.  56),  CL.  (p.  57).  All  these  refer  to  the 
same  group  of  persons,  Counts  of  Belley  and  Bishops  of  Belley. 

Thus  we  have  : 

Humbert  =  Auchilia 


Ct  of  Belley 
1031 

1031 

Adela  = 

1 

=  Amadeus 

Ct  of  Belley 

and  Savoy 

1031,  1051 

1 
Burchard 

Oddo 

1 

Humbert 

ob.  vi.  pat. 

1 

Aymon 

Bp  of  Belley 

ob. 105- 

To  this  tree  should  be  added  in  Baron  Carutti's  and  Signor  Di 
Vesme's  view  the  fact  that  Burchard  is  the  third  Archbishop  of  Lyons 
of  that  name.  Bishop  of  Aosta  and  Abbot  of  St  Maurice.  This  view 
employs  the  genealogy  given  in  Car.  Reg.  lm.  (on  p.  47,  above);  but  it 
will  be  noticed  that  the  grounds  for  it  are  not  those  of  identical  locali- 
ties or  mention  of  the  Archbishop  in  the  same  charters  as  his  father  and 
brothers  (for  save  in  lii.,  which  does  not  refer  to  Savoy  or  Belley,  no 

Burgundian  year  might  be  from  October  1039  to  October  1040,  reckoning  from  his 
election,  or  from  June  104O  to  June  1041,  reckoning  from  Conrad  ITs  death.  But 
on  13  Oct.  1039  the  moon  was  twenty-one  days  old,  and  in  1040  three  days,  while  on 
13  Oct.  1057  in  the  second  year  of  Henry  IV  the  moon  was  precisely  eleven  days  old. 
Further,  Otto  appears  again  as  advocate  in  1067  (Car.  Keg.  cxLiv.;  cf.  below,  p.  73, 
n.  i).    These  considerations  make  me  date  the  charter  in  1057. 

P.  o.  5 


66 


The  problem  of  the  two  Humberts 


such  thing  occurs);  but  on  chronological  considerations,  which  I  will 
develop  later,  and  on  the  fact  that  the  one  undoubted  reference  to 
Humbert  Whitehands'  son  Burchard  (Car.  Reg.  cxx.,  above,  pp.  52-3) 
gives  him  no  episcopal  title.  Baron  Gingins,  one  sees,  had  noted  this 
peculiarity  and  consequently  made  Archbishop  Burchard  to  be  White- 
hands'   son. 

The  second  tree  is  that  of  Humbert  Whitehands  himself.  It  is 
based  on  Car.  Reg.  lxxiii.  (above,  p.  48),  lx.  (p.  48),  lxi.  (p.  49), 
cxx.  (pp.  52-3),  cxxiii.  (p.  53),  cxxv.  (p.  53),  cxxxii.  (p.  54),  CXXXIII., 

CXXXV.     (p.     54),     CXXXVII.     (p.     55),     CXLIII.     (p.      55),     CXLV.    (p.     56), 

CCCLXXII.  (p.  57).  These  comprise  the  Aostan  and  the  Mauriennese 
charters  and  some  from  Savoy  proper,  Belley  and  Sermorens.  They 
may  be  said,  indeed,  to  include  the  localities  of  the  first  series, 
although  they  add  others.     From  them  we  have  : 


Ermengarde  =  Burchard 


Countess 
1023 


1023 


Aymon 

nephew  of  Whitehands 

1023,  1047 


I — 
Humbert  W^hitehands  =  N.  N. 
Ct  of  Aosta  ! 

and  Maurienne  I 

1024,  1047  I 


Ulnci 
Count 


I 

Amadeus  I 
Ct  of  (what  ?) 
1030  (?),  1042 


i 

Burchard 

1030  (?) 

1042 


Aymon 

Bp  of  Sion 

Abbot  of  St  Maurice 

1030  (?),  1042 

ob.  1054 


Oddo  =  Adelaide 
Mqss  of  Turin       Countess  of 
Ct  of  Maurienne,  Turin 

Aosta,  Belley  and        ob.  109 1 

Savoy, 
1030  (?),  ob.  1060 


I 

Peter  I 
Mqss 


Amadeus  II 
Count 


Oddo 


Bertha 

m.  Henry  IV 

Emperor 


— 1 

Adelaide 

m.  Rudolf  of 

Rheinfelden 

anti-Caesar 


The  children  of  Marquess  Oddo  are  supplied,  with  one  or  two  dates 
concerning  him,  from  other  documents.  It  should  be  noted  that,  if 
Humbert  Whitehands  is  the  advocate  and  counsellor  of  Queen  Ermen- 
garde, he  is  brought  into  connection  with  the  Genevois  (Car.  Reg. 
Lxxxiv.,  xci.,  above,  pp.  50,  52)  and  the  Viennois  (Car.  Reg.  cvi.,  above, 
p.  51  ;  cf.  also  above,  pp.  23-4).  The  question  arises  whether  Burchard 
or  Countess  Ermengarde  was  the  link  by  which  Aymon  was  Whitehands' 


1  Bishop  Aymon  of  Sion  calls  Count  Ulric  his  avunculus,  which  would  more 
naturally  mean  his  maternal,  than  his  paternal  uncle.  But  also  Ulric  does  not  appear 
as  a  Humbertine  family  name,  which  gives  a  presumption  in  favour  of  the  maternal 
relationship  together  with  the  fact  that  the  land  Aymon  inherited  from  Ulric  lay  in 
the  Vallais  where  no  other  Humbertine  possessions  are  known  at  so  early  a  date. 


Genealogical  data  from  the  documents 


67 


nephew.  Owing  to  Burchard  being  a  Humbertine  name,  while  Ermen- 
garde  is  not  proved  to  be  so,  we  may  decide  that  Burchard  was  probably 
Humbert  Whitehands'  brother. 

This  consideration  leads  us  to  those  Humbertine  charters,  in  part 
already  mentioned,  which  deal  with  members  of  the  family  who  do  not 
really  fall  into  either  chief  division  of  the  two-Humberts  view.  These  are 
Car.  Reg.  xx.  (p.  45),  xxiv.,  xxi.  (p.  46),  liii.  (p.  47),  cxxxii.,  cxxxiii., 
cxxxv.  (p.  54),  cxxxvii.  (p.  55).  From  them  we  have  the  following 
series  of  connections  : 


Aynion 

(?) 

(?) 

Count 

relative  of 

1                                     1 
Oddo                        Burchard 

Humbert  =  N.  N. 

Aymon 

Bp 

of 

Belley 

Count 

1000 

1003 

Humbert  = 

Auci 

ia 

Burchard  =  Ermengarde 

Humbert  Whitehands 

Ct  of  Belley 

1023 

Countess 

and  family 

and  Savoy 

1023 

uncle  of  Aymon 

connection  of 

Burchard 

Aymon 

and  Ermengarde 

nephew  of  Whitehands 

relative  of  Bp  Oddo 

relative  of  Ct  Humbert 

and  Aucilia 

and  of  Ct  Aymon 

1023, 

1047 

These  documents  certainly  link  up  all  the  Humbertines.  I  may  also 
point  out  that  it  is  odd,  if  there  are  two  Humberts,  that  in  1023  only 
the  Count  of  Belley  should  be  mentioned  while  in  1047  and  the  death- 
bed charter  only  Whitehands  appears  (Amadeus  Count  of  Belley  being 
still  living  105 1  [see  above]). 

Another  genealogy,  which  is  here  of  importance,  is  that  of  the 
Anselmids  (cf.  pp.  lo-ii).  By  a  concubine  Aldiud,  King  Conrad  had 
had  a  son,  Archbishop  Burchard  II  of  Lyons.  Aldiud  had  then  borne  to 
her  husband  Anselm  three  more  sons,  Burchard,  Archbishop  of  Vienne, 
Anselm,  Bishop  of  Aosta,  and  Ulric,  advocate  of  the  see  of  Vienne.  The 
lands  that  we  know  they  held  lay  in  the  Genevois  on  the  south  shore  of 
Lake  Geneva  and  they  also  leased  some  (in  Vallais  (?),  in  Bargen  and 
Aosta)  from  St  Maurice  Abbey  ^  A  nephew  of  Burchard  II  of  Lyons 
was  the  Humbertine  Burchard  III-.     They  were  probably  connected 

^  See  M.H.P.  Chart.  11.  61  and  73,  and  Chevalier,  Cartul.  de  St  Andr^-le-bas, 
Vienne,  p.  256  (Car.  Keg.  xil.  and  xi.vi.).  I  suspect  Car.  Reg.  xxvii.  [M.H.P.  Chart. 
II.  93)  to  date  from  1050  when  the  Indiction  was  in.  and  Emp.  Henry  HI  King  in 
Burgundy. 

*  See  above,  pp.  20  and  28-9  and  notes.  I  cannot  accept  Baron  Carutti's  theory 
of  the  relationship  of  Burchard  H  and  Burchard  HI.  According  to  him  Conrad  was 
father  of  Burchard  H  by  a  concubine  (as  stated  in  the  chronicles,  etc.);  but  Conrad's 

5-2 


68 


The  problem  of  the  two   Humberts 


with  the  Counts  of  Equestricus\  and  held  lands  granted  by  King 
Conrad  to  Aldiud  in  the  county  of  Ottingen  in  Alamannian  Burgundy  ^ 
Their  genealogy  is  as  follows*: 

King  Ccnrad  =  Aldiud  =  Anselm 


Burchard  II 

Abp  of  Lyons 

Abbot  of 

St  Maurice 

arch-chancellor 

979-1030  (?i03i) 


N.  N.  (?) 
m.  Count 
Humbert 


(?)  N.  N. 
m.  Count 
Humbert 


Burchard 
Abp  of 
Vienne 

1001-1031 


Anselm 
Bpof  Aosta 

995 

ob.  1026 

Provost  of 

St  Maurice 

arch-chancellor 


Ulric 
m.  Girelda 
advocate  of 
abpric 
Vienne 
1019 


Burchard  III 

Abp  of  Lyons 

1031  '?)-ro36 

Bp  of  Aosta  1022-1036 

Provost  of  St  Maurice 

1022  (?),  1031 

Abbot  of  St  Maurice 

1057,  1067-8  (?) 

That  Burchard  III  was  nephew  of  Burchard  II  by  a  sister  and  not 
by  a  brother,  is  shown  by  Car.  Reg.  Lii.  (above,  p.  47)  which  proves  his 
father  is  a  Count  Humbert,  while  all  three  persons  mentioned  there  are 
obvious  Humbertines,  not  Anselmids.  The  identity  of  the  Bishop 
Burchard  with  Bishop  Burchard  of  Aosta  can  scarcely  be  questioned. 
We  may  note  the  Genevois  locality. 

Now,  in  order  to  hold  the  two  Humbertine  family  trees  apart,  we 
may  appeal  to  differences  of  locality;  chronological  incompatibility;  diffe- 
rences of  office  ;  and  the  isolation  of  homonyms  in  separate  series  of  the 
charters.  It  is  evident  that  when  we  are  dealing  with  homonyms  of  the 
same  house,   who  were  at  least  partly  contemporary,  and  who,  in  the 

first  wife  and  therefore,  in  a  way,  Burchard  II's  stepmother,  was  a  Humbertine.  Her 
nephew  was  Burchard  III.  Besides  the  oddity  of  the  use  of  "  nepos  "  to  express  this 
roundabout  (and  illegitimate  at  that)  relationship,  there  is  no  evidence  whatever  that 
Queen   Adelania   was   a   Humbertine.      Cf.    Labruzzi,    La   Motiarchia   di  Savoia, 

pp.  147-51- 

^  See  Manteyer,  Origitus,  p.  475,  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  pp.  385-6,  and  above, 
p.  10,  n.  3. 

2  See  Car.  Reg.  xxvi.  M.H.P.  Chart.  11.  91. 

^  This  genealogy  is  amply  proved  by  Manteyer,  Origines,  pp.  465-76.  Cf. 
Carutti,  Umberto  Biancamano,  App.  I.  pp.  301-4.  Some  confusion  has  been  caused 
by  calling  Aldiud  (var.  Aldeiu)  Adelania  as  well  as  the  queen.  The  documents  are 
M.H.P.  Chart.  11.  84,  "  donni  archipresulis  Burcardi  et  fratris  sui  Anselmi  episcopi  " 
(looi  or  2);  Car.  Peg.  xxvi.  M.H.P.  Chart.  Ii.  91,  Bp  Anselm's  mother  is  Aldiud 
who  had  land  from  King  Conrad  (1005  or  1006);  Car.  Reg.  xxv.  (Poupardin,  Bour- 
gogne, p.  267,  n.  2,  and  p.  271,  n.  i),  Bp  Anselm's  father  is  Anselm  (1001  or  2);  Car. 
Reg.  XLVi.  (Chevalier,  Cartul.  St  Andr^-le-bas  de  Vienne,  p.  256),  Archbp  Burchard 
of  Vienne  and  his  brother  Ulric,  advocate  do.,  are  sons  of  Anselm  and  Aaldiu  (1019); 
M.H.P.  Chart,  il.  73,  Archbp  Burchard  II  of  Lyons  has  brother  Ulric,  whose  wife 
is  Girelda  (c.  1000). 


Are  there  two  branches  ?     Topographical  indices    69 

manner  of  the  time,  give  painfully  casual  and  incomplete  notices  on 
their  relations,  these  indications  are  all  we  have  to  go  on.  What  has 
just  been  said  suggests  one  first  counter-difficulty  to  be  got  out  of  the 
way.  Is  it  possible  that  two  families  of  cousins,  named  so  alike,  would 
so  exist  together^?  The  answer,  I  think,  is  that  it  is  not  likely,  but 
still  they  might  do  so.  The  Carolingians — Charles,  Lewis  and  Carloman 
— furnish  an  apt  example  :  and  we  remember  how  the  legitimate  Hohen- 
staufen  are  all  named  Frederick,  Conrad  and  Henry.  But  even  so  we 
wonder  that  the  Humbertines  used  no  nicknames. 

(i)  I  take  first  then  the  topographical  indices-.  The  Savoy-Belley 
charters  (see  above,  p.  65)  all  refer  to  land  in  the  counties  of  Belley 
and  Savoy,  which  Count  Amadeus  possessed.  If  we  take  Archbishop 
Burchard  III  to  belong  to  this  branch,  the  charter  Car.  Reg.  Lii.  brings 
the  group  into  connection  with  the  Genevois.  The  reference  in 
Burchard's  (1023)  charter  (Car.  Reg.  Liii.)  to  them  is  made  in  regard 
to  land  in  the  county  of  Belley.  Bishop  Oddo  of  Belley's  probable 
brother.  Count  Humbert  (1000-3,  see  pp.  45-6  and  58  and  67),  would 
do  very  well  for  its  founder,  who  would  thus  have  land  in  Sermorens 
bordering  on  Savoy  proper  and  Belley  :  similarly  suitable  would  be  the 
intervention  of  a  Count  Humbert  in  favour  of  the  Guigonids  of  Albon 
and  Grenoble  in  1009  (Car.  Reg.  xxviii.,  above,  p.  46)  as  well  as  the 
oath  to  the  Peace  of  God  in  1025  (see  above,  pp.  23-4).  So  far  so 
good ;  the  charters  form  a  compact  body,  save  the  mentions  of  the  erratic 
Archbishop  Burchard  III.  But  is  Humbert  Whitehands  excluded  from 
this  territory?  Here  the  answer  must  be  "No."  In  Car.  Reg.  LX. 
(p.  59)  (c.  1020-30)  he  and  his  sons  appear  as  landowners  and  bene- 
factors of  Cluny  and  Le  Bourget  in  Savoy  proper  and  in  Belley ;  nay, 
leading  a  whole  troop  of  local  benefactors  of  Cluny,  while  the  Savoy- 
Belley  line  does  not  appear  with  them  in  these  charters.  In  Car.  Reg. 
cxxiii.  and  cxxv.  (p.  62)  Whitehands  appears  as  a  landowner  of 
acquired  land  at  Les  Echelles  in  Sermorens.  In  cxxxv.  (p.  63)  he 
appears  at  his  nephew  Aymon's  death-bed,  and  confirms  a  grant  dealing 
with  land  at  St  Genix  in  Belley.  Here  too  is  no  mention  of  the  Belley 
line;  yet  we  have  no  trace  of  Whitehands  alive  after  1047  and  Ama- 
deus of  Belley  was  living  1051.  Thus  if  we  suppose  a  division  of  family 
interests  and  property  it  was  done  very  clumsily.  Whitehands  and  his 
sons  seem  dominant  in  Savoy  and  well-landed  in  Belley  and  Sermorens, 
and  when  they  appear  the  Belley-Savoy  line  fades  out  of  sight,  save  that 
Burchard  III  with  whom  I  will  deal  later.  Or  do  the  two  lines  really 
coalesce  ? 

1  Cf.  Labruzzi,  La  Monarchia  di  Savoia,  pp.  79-101. 

2  For  these,  as  for  so  much  else  in  this  study,  I  am  indebted  to  Manteyer's  works, 
especially  the  often-cited  Origines. 


JO  The  problem  of  the  two  Humberts 

There  is  also  the  Coise  charter  (1036)  (Car.  Reg.  cvii.,  p.  61)  which 
shows  a  Count  Humbert  owning  land  in  Savoy  and  apparently  Count  of 
Savoy  \  This  should  be  Whitehands  in  any  case  owing  to  the  lateness 
of  the  date. 

Then  we  have  Car.  Reg.  lxxxiii.,  lxxxiv.,  cvi.  (p.  6r),  xci. 
(p.  62)  showing  Queen  Ermengarde's  Count  Humbert  interested  in 
the  Viennois,  the  Genevois  (1039)  and  Savoy  proper.  Seeing  that  her 
Count  Humbert  at  that  late  date  can  scarcely  be  other  than  Whitehands, 
it  is  certainly  strange  that  the  1023  and  1030  charters  (Car.  Reg.  Liii.  and 
Lxxix.,  pp.  58  and  60)  seem  to  show  Count  Humbert  of  Belley  in  the 
same  position.  Baron  Carutti  has  avoided  these  difficulties  partly  by 
making  the  1023  and  1030  charters  refer  to  Humbert  Whitehands,  a 
suggestion  which,  if  we  accept  the  two-families  view,  is  barely  tenable, 
as  shown  above  on  p.  60,  and  partly  by  the  hypothesis  that  Amadeus 
of  Belley  was  anti-German  in  1034,  that  he  was  then  deprived  by 
Conrad  and  his  dominions  given  to  his  cousins  Whitehands  and  his  son 
Amadeus  I,  and  that  the  elder  Amadeus  still  kept  his  title  of  Count  of 
Belley  I  But  this  is  to  imagine  a  great  deal,  and  ought  not  to  be 
followed  unless  we  find  in  the  other  indices  strong  evidence  of  two 
separate  families. 

(2)  Next  comes  the  question  of  chronology.  Is  it  possible  or  probable 
that  a  single  Count  Humbert  will  meet  the  conditions  of  the  charters  ? 
To  begin  with  the  man  himself.  The  supporters  of  a  single-family  tree 
ascribe  to  Whitehands  all  the  mentions  of  a  living  Count  Humbert  in 
these  charters  between  1000  and  1047  (pp.  45-55)-  This  period  of 
activity,  though  a  long  one  for  an  insanitary  age,  is  by  no  means  impos- 
sible. In  fact  Count  Humbert  of  Belley,  if  he  existed,  would  fall  but 
little  short  of  it — 1000  to  1032  at  the  least,  and  possibly  976  (p.  45)  to 
1032.  But  the  case  is  different  when  we  come  to  Whitehands'  pre- 
sumed children.  Not  only  were  Amadeus  I  and  Bishop  Burchard  III 
in  active  life  in  1022,  but  the  former's  son  Aymon  was  Bishop  of 
Belley  by  1032,  if  not  before.  Let  us  see  what  this  implies.  White- 
hands  died,  it  is  most  likely,  in  1048^  Giving  him  70  years  of  life,  we 
get  back  to  978  for  his  birth.  To  be  generous,  let  us  say  he  was  born 
in  975,  a  limit  we  can  hardly  exceed.  If  he  married  at  20  in  995  (he 
appears  married  in  1003,  see  p.  46),  then  his  eldest  son,  Amadeus  I, 
could  be  born  in  996,  could  marry  at  20  in  1016,  could  have  an  eldest 

^  The  King,  it  seems,  still  held  land  in  Savoy  from  the  charter,  for  terra  regis  sive 
comitis  necnon  Ota  iixori  Sigibodi,  and  terra  regis  et  comitis  surely  refer  to  three 
separate  owners.  The  beneficial  comitatus  would  hardly  be  described  as  terra  regis 
et  cotnitis  in  1036. 

^  Carutti,  Umherto  Biancamano,  pp.  126-7. 

^  See  above,  p.  40. 


Are  there  two  branches?     Chronological  indices    71 

son  (probably  the  predeceasing  Humbert  [see  pp.  55-6  and  64])  in  1017, 
and  a  second  son  Aymon  in  1018.  Thus  the  latter  would  be  a  mere 
boy  in  1032,  even  if  we  compressed  the  above  dates  a  little  (as  is  quite 
possible,  though  not  probable  on  an  average).  He  would  have  to  be  a 
boy-bishop,  elevated  by  his  family  influence.  Such  elevations  were  by 
no  means  unknown  at  that  place  and  time.  We  have  the  examples  of 
Burchard  II  of  Lyons,  who  attained  his  see  in  boyhood \  of  the  child 
whom  Count  Gerard  produced  as  competitor  for  the  same  in  1030-1^; 
or  of  Pope  Benedict  IX  (1033-48)  who  began  his  reign  at  twelve  years 
old.  Still  Baron  Carutti^  reasonably  asked  for  evidence  of  a  fact  which 
at  the  best  was  exceptional. 

We  may  next  proceed  to  consider  Auchilia's  age  (who  in  the  single- 
family  scheme  is  Whitehands'  wife  and  Burchard  Ill's  mother).  Her 
bastard  brother  Burchard  II  became  Archbishop  in  979,  being  then  a 
boy.  As  his  father,  King  Conrad's,  first  wife,  Adelania,  died  before 
963  and  the  King  married  again  about  965,  we  may  put  Burchard  II's 
birth  about  965  when  he  was  still  a  widower"*.  Then  of  the  legitimate 
brothers,  one,  Anselm  of  Aosta,  died  in  January  1026,  the  other,  Burchard 
of  Vienne,  on  the  19th  August  1031,  and  Ulric  at  an  unknown  date  after 
1019.  Anselm  was  Bishop  already  in  995  while  Burchard  became 
Archbishop  in  looi.  Their  father  is  last  known  to  be  living  in  1002. 
Thus  the  birth  of  the  two  brothers  may  very  well  fall  about  970,  and 
Auchilia  could  easily  be  younger — in  fact  we  do  not  want  Whitehands' 
wife  to  be  born  till  near  980  \  In  short  Auchilia's  position  as  daughter 
of  Anselm  and  Aldiud  has  nothing  repugnant  in  it  to  her  position  as 
Whitehands'  wife  and  mother  of  Count  Amadeus  and  Bishop  Burchard. 
As  will  be  seen  by  the  reader  from  all  the  foregoing,  Whitehands'  posi- 
tion in  the  Savoy,  Belley,  Sermorens  districts  negatives  the  theory  that 
he  was  a  son  of  Anselm  or  King  Conrad.  The  Anselmids  had  no  land 
there®.  The  royal  demesnes  would  have  to  be  enormous  in  those  dis- 
tricts if,  after  the  Humbertines  had  been  provided  for.  Queen  Ermen- 
garde  could  still  be  dowered  from  them  as  she  was.  To  sum  up,  we 
are  left  with  a  chronological  difficulty,  if  we  accept  a  single-family  tree. 
Count  Amadeus  I  is  so  speedy  as  to  have  a  bishop-son  in  1032  ;  Mar- 
quess Oddo,  his  youngest  brother,  is  so  tardy  as  only  to  have  his  first- 
born c.   1046'.     Of  course   this  is  all  possible,   but,  unless  one  had 

^  "  Hie  episcopatum  Lugdunensem  in  infantia  adeptus  est,"  Hugo  Flavin.    M.G.H. 
viii.  p.  367;  see  Manteyer,  Origines,  pp.  467-70. 
-  See  above,  p.  29. 

*  Umberto  Biancamauo,  pp.  95-6. 

■*  See  Manteyer,  Originei,  pp.  469-70,  and  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  p.  386,  n.  i, 
'  See  Manteyer,  Origines,  pp.  480-1,  and  above,  p.  70. 

*  See  above,  pp.  67-8. 
">  See  below,  p.  206. 


72  The  problem  of  the  two   Humberts 

conclusive  evidence  to  prove  it,  one  would  wish  to  construe  the  facts 
otherwise.  On  the  other  hand  it  does  not  seem  easy  to  dispense  with  a 
long-lived  Count  Humbert  whichever  view  we  take. 

(3)  To  proceed,  there  is  the  third  category  of  difficulties.  Homonyms 
who  bear  different  titles  and  occupy  different  positions  are  more  likely 
to  be  two  persons  than  one.  I  have  dealt  with  the  two  Humberts  in 
the  course  of  our  topographical  and  chronological  investigations ;  so 
only  two  names  come  here  in  question :  Amadeus  and  Burchard. 
Amadeus,  being  the  easier,  may  be  taken  first.  One  party  says  there  is 
one  Amadeus,  who  appears  from  1022  to  105 1,  son  of  Whitehands  and 
himself  Count  of  Savoy  and  Belley.  The  other  distinguishes  Count 
Amadeus  of  Savoy  and  Belley,  who  appears  in  1022,  1030,  and  1051, 
and  who  was  probably  dead  by  1058 \  from  his  relative  Count  Amadeus, 
son  of  Whitehands,  who  appears  1020-30,  1040,  1042,  c.  1045  (Car. 
Reg.  cxxxv.)  and  had  been  dead  some  time  by  1054  (see  above,  p.  40, 
n.  9).  Is  there  any  difference  in  the  assumption  of  their  title  of  count 
or  in  their  possession  of  a  county?  On  the  first  point  the  presumed 
Amadeus  of  Savoy-Belley  appears  untitled  in  1022  (Car.  Reg.  lii.),  in 
Car.  Reg.  lxxil,  c.  1030-2  and  in  the  posthumous  reference  to  him  by 
his  son  Bishop  Aymon  (Car.  Reg.  cxli.),  while  he  appears  as  Count  in 
1030  (Car.  Reg.  lxxix.),  in  105 1  (Car.  Reg.  cxxxviii.),  in  Car.  Reg. 
Lxxxi.,  Lxxiv.  and  in  the  posthumous  charter  of  1058  (Car.  Reg.  cl.). 

Next  we  take  Amadeus  I,  Whitehands'  son.  He  appears  untitled 
1020-30  (Car.  Reg.  Lxxiii.,  id.  lx.,  id.  LXi.),  and  1042  {id.  cxxiii.),  and 
as  Count  in  1040  {id.  cxx.),  1042  {id.  cxxv.)  and  c.  1045  {id.  cxxxv.). 
Thus  it  is  clear  there  is  nothing  repugnant  to  the  identity  of  the  two 
Amadeuses,  for  the  cases,  where  the  titles  are  dropped  after  once  being 
assumed,  occur  in  each  separated  series. 

As  to  the  counties  they  possessed,  it  has  already  come  before  us 
that  the  two  appear  in  the  same  area,  with  its  centre  at  Le  Bourget ; 
the  son  of  Whitehands  appearing  once  at  Aosta  to  confirm  his  father's 
will.  When  we  remember  that  their  deaths  seem  to  fall  close  together, 
the  most  natural  inference  is  that  the  two  Counts  are  identical. 

There  remains  Archbishop  Burchard  HI.  We  may  remove  at  once 
the  Burchard,  father  of  Aymon  and  probable  brother  of  Whitehands, 
from  the  discussion  as  a  separate  person.  Burchard  HI  appears  as 
Bishop  (doubtless  of  Aosta)  (Car.  Reg.  lii.)  in  1022  and  (of  Aosta) 
in  1024  (Car.  Reg.  lvii.)  and  1026  (Car.  Reg.  lix.),  as  both  Bishop  of 
Aosta  and  Provost  of  St  Maurice  in  1026  (Car.  Reg.  Lxii.),  as  Provost 

^  The  period  of  Amadeus  of  Savoy-Belley's  death  is  shown  thus.  Marquess  Oddo 
died  in  1060.  He  ruled  in  Belley,  at  a  time  when  Josserand  was  already  bishop  there 
(see  above,  p.  56 — Guigue,  p.  27).  Now  Aymon  of  Belley,  Josserand's  predecessor, 
survived  his  own  father  Amadeus,  who  yet  was  alive  in  December  105 1. 


Are  there  two  branches  ?     The  homonyms        y^ 

only  (Car.  Reg.  lxxx.)  in  1030-2,  as  both  in  Car.  Reg.  lxxxvi.  and 
LXiii.  (1020-1  or  preferably  1030-1)— he  was  actually  Archbishop  of 
Lyons  c.  1031-6;  then  he  reappears  as  Archbishop  only  (Car.  Reg. 
cxxiii.  and  cxxv.)  in  1042,  as  both  Archbishop  and  Abbot  of  St  Maurice 
in  1057  (Car.  Reg.  cxix.)\  and,  supposing  that  he  was  the  brother  of 
Amadeus  of  Savoy-Belley,  quite  untitled  in  1058  (Car.  Reg.  cl.). 

Then  there  are  the  appearances  of  Whitehands'  son  untitled.  These 
are  Car.  Reg.  Lxxiii.  (c.  1020-30)  and  id.  cxx.  (1040) ;  lxxiii.  may 
have  been  before  his  consecration.  Ought  we  to  infer  from  cxx.  that 
he  is  different  from  the  Archbishop  Burchard  III?  It  seems  to  me 
that,  remembering  the  latter  had  been  deposed,  we  cannot  make  this 
deduction.  In  1058  Pope  Stephen  gives  him  no  title  whatever;  and  in 
c.  1030-2  he  only  styles  himself  Provost  of  St  Maurice  when  he  was 
Bishop  of  Aosta  as  well.  Baron  Gingins  actually  reversed  the  position 
and  made  Whitehands'  son  the  Archbishop  and  Burchard  of  Savoy- 
Belley  the  layman". 

(4)  He  had  a  reason  for  this,  as  we  may  see  when  we  turn  to  the  fourth 
•category.  The  homonymous  personages  of  the  two  presumed  lines,  we 
have  noticed,  refused  ever  to  appear  together  in  charters,  although  the 
practice  was  not  infrequent  with  other  homonyms — the  alius  Gotta- 
Jrediis  and  his  like  appear  in  due  season  in  the  charters.  Did  the  two 
families  at  least  keep  altogether  separate  and  not  appear  with  a  member 
or  so  (not  being  kept  away  by  the  presence  of  his  homonym)  from  the 
other  branch  ?  But  on  the  double-line  hypothesis  this  last  perversity  is 
just  what  they  committed.  Not  to  mention  the  rivalry  of  the  two 
Humberts  for  Queen  Ermengarde's  favour  (see  above,  p.  70),  there  is 
Archbishop  Burchard  III.  That  abandoned  character,  when  he  saw 
his  first-cousin  once-removed,  lay  Burchard,  out  of  the  way,  went  to 
visit  his  cousin  Whitehands  and  signed  in  charters  in  place  of  the 
latter's  second-born.  The  Aostan  charters  of  1024  and  1026  (Car.  Reg. 
Lvii.  and  Lix.)  of  course  attest  only  to  an  official  connection  of  Bishop 
and  Count.  But  we  have  the  family  grants  of  Les  Echelles  in  1042 
(Car.  Reg.  cxxiii.,  cxxv.),  where  there  appear  in  order  of  precedence 
Archbishop    Burchard,    Bishop    Aymon,    Amadeus    and    Oddo,    and 

'  See  above,  p.  64,  n.  2.  Thus  Burchard  only  becomes  Abbot  on  his  relative, 
Bishop  Aymon  of  Sion's  death,  the  latter  being  Abbot  in  1050.  Now  in  Car.  Reg. 
CXIX.  the  Archbishop- Abbot's  advocate  is  Octo.  But  in  two  further  charters  of  1067-8 
{Car.  Reg.  cxLiv.  above,  pp.  57  and  65)  and  1069  (Car.  Reg.  CLXViiI.  above,  pp.  57 
and  65)  a  Burchard  appears  first  as  Abbot  and  Provost  of  St  Maurice,  then  as  Abbot 
M'ilh  a  Provost  Anselm.  In  both  cases  his  advocate  is  Otto.  If  one  could  be  certain 
this  Abbot  was  Burchard  III  (and  1  see  no  reason  against  the  identification),  the 
charters  could  be  given  as  an  instance  of  his  dropping  the  archiepiscopal  style.  Cf. 
below,  p.  92. 

-  See  above,  p.  42. 


74  The  problem  of  the  two  Humberts 

Archbishop  Burchard,  Count  Amadeus  and  Oddo.  True  he  does  not 
appear  in  the  Cluny  Le  Bourget  grants  (Car.  Reg.  lx.  and  lxi.),  but 
neither  does  the  other  Burchard,  Whitehands'  son  by  this  scheme ;  and 
here  we  know  that  a  charter,  in  which  a  Burchard  did  take  part,  is 
missing  (see  above,  pp.  57,  60  and  65).  So  when  in  Car.  Reg.  lxxiii. 
(c.  1020-30)  and  Car.  Reg.  cxx.  (1040)  we  find  the  same  series  of 
names,  Amadeus,  Burchard,  Oddo  and  Aymon;  Oddo,  Count  Amadeus,. 
Bishop  Aymon  of  Sion  and  Burchard,  we  need  not  hesitate  to  identify 
them  with  the  same  series  of  names  in  the  Les  Echelles  documents'. 
To  sum  up,  on  the  evidence  available,  it  seems  eminently  unlikely  that 
there  were  two  families  of  close  kinsmen  in  the  same  districts  who  with 
one  exception  never  attest  each  other's  charters,  and  that  the  single 
exception,  Archbishop  Burchard  III,  should  only  attest  his  cousins' 
charters  when  his  homonym,  the  lay  Burchard,  is  not  present.  We 
surely  have  only  one  family  before  us. 

Another  piece  of  evidence  may  be  cited  at  the  close.  On  the 
1 2th  June  1052  Bishop  Aymon  of  Sion  gives  to  the  see  of  Sion  lands  he 
has  inherited  from  his  late  avunciibis,  Count  Ulric  (Car.  Reg.  cxlv.). 
As  we  have  seen,  Burchard  II  of  Lyons,  the  uncle  of  Burchard  III, 
had  a  uterine  brother  Ulric  (see  above,  p.  68  and  n.  3).  The  two 
genealogical  fragments  fit  together. 

In  conclusion,  we  find  that  the  two  series  are  (i)  topographically 
indistinguishable,  (2)  in  chronology  possible  to  refer  to  one  family,, 
(3)  in  titles  but  in  one  case  inconsistent  (and  that  case  is  irregular)^, 
and  (4)  impossible  to  isolate.  We  thus  find  ourselves  accepting  the 
view  of  one  Count  Humbert  Whitehands  and  one  main  Humbertine 
line.  The  next  thing  to  examine  is  :  what  territories  Count  Humbert^ 
his  sons  and  brothers,  possessed. 


Section  IV.    The  possessions  of  Humbert  I 
Whitehands. 

At  the  commencement  of  this  section  I  ought  to  say  that  the 
material  for  it  is  drawn  mainly  from  the  often-cited  studies  of  M.  G.  de 
Manteyer,  Les   Origines  de  la   inaison  de  Savoie  en  Bourgogne,  Notes 

1  Cf.  for  these  arguments,  Manteyer,  Origines,  pp.  476-81,  Labruzzi,  Un  Jiglio 
d'Umberio  Biancatnano,  Arch.  star,  ital.y  Ser.  v.,  XVI.  and  Labruzzi,  La  Monarchia 
di  Savoia,  pp.  79-101.  Henceforward  I  may  adopt  the  genealogy  given  by  Manteyer 
(see  above,  pp.  44  and  68) :  only  Aymon  of  Pierreforte  and  the  Count  Aymon  of  Car. 
Jieg.  cxxxv.  remain  unplaced. 

^  For  Burchard  III  was  a  deposed  Archbishop  by  1040  (Car.  Reg.  cxx.). 


The  Lyonnais.     Section  A  75 

additionnelles,  and  La  Paix  en  Viennois^.  I  have  not  thought  it,  there- 
fore, necessary  to  deal  with  the  matter  in  such  detail  as  with  the 
crucial  genealogical  question.  The  method  adopted,  principally  with 
a  view  to  clearness,  is  the  following:  (i)  I  group  the  possessions 
according  to  the  pagi  or  comitatus  in  which  they  occur,  those  pagi, 
etc.,  being  taken  roughly  in  order  of  chronological  precedence  as  they 
appear  in  the  Humbertine  charters.  (2)  The  evidence  for  these  posses- 
sions is,  where  necessary,  divided  into  contemporary  {a)  and  later  (f)) ; 
and  the  inferences  to  be  deduced  as  to  their  extent  are  discussed. 
(3)  After  this,  under  each  pagus  or  comitatus  the  possible  origin  of  the 
Humbertine  possessions  there  is  discussed,  chiefly  with  reference  to  the 
views  of  M.  de  Manteyer.  In  so  doing,  I  avoid  as  much  as  possible 
questions  regarding  the  ancestry  of  Whitehands,  deferring  them  to  the 
following  section.  I  think  it  will  be  seen  that  this  course  not  only  does 
not  damage  the  continuity  of  the  argument,  but  makes  it  easier  to 
dissociate  attested  facts  from  what  in  the  nature  of  the  case  must  be 
mainly  theory,  however  fascinating.  (4)  At  the  close  of  the  section 
I  sum  up  the  general  results,  both  as  to  the  growth  of  the  Humbertine 
possessions,  and  as  to  the  final  territorial  position  the  House  had 
attained  by  1048. 

(i)     The  Lyonnais.     Section  A. 

The  pagus  or  diocese  of  the  Lyonnais  was  one  of  the  most  extensive 
in  Burgundy,  but  its  western  portions,  the  mountainous  district  of  Forez 
and  the  low-lying,  lake-studded  tract  between  the  rivers  Saone  and  Ain, 
do  not  here  concern  us.  The  remainder  falls  into  two  divisions. 
(A)  There  is  the  small  upland  country,  opposite  the  city  of  Lyons 
itself,  and  bounded  on  the  north  and  west  by  the  Rhone.  On  the 
east  it  reached  to  the  mouth  of  the  Ain  ;  on  the  south  it  included 
Heyrieux  and  St  Symphorien  d'Ozon.  (B)  Secondly  we  have  that 
part  of  the  diocese  which  lay  east  of  the  Ain.  This  consisted  (i)  of 
a  small  district  to  the  south  of  the  Rhone  to  the  north  of  and  including 
Morestel,  which  was  separated  from  district  (A)  by  a  section  of  the 
Viennois  which  reached  to  the  Rhone,  and  (ii)  of  a  long,  mainly 
mountainous  strip  to  the  east  of  the  Ain  and  north  of  the  Rhone, 
including  Lhuis,  St  Rambert,  Amberieux,  Nantua  and  Oyonnax,  much 

^  Next  to  these  studies  I  have  found  Carutti's  Umberto  Biancamano  most  helpful  ; 
and  for  the  later  state  of  things,  Guigue,  Topographic  hist,  de  la  d^pmt.  de  l\4i>i,  and 
Menabr^a,  Origines  ft'odales.  The  investigations  as  to  what  part  of  the  thirteenth 
century  Savoyard  lands  were  acquired  in  later  times  than  the  eleventh  century  have 
been  conducted  on  documentary  evidence.  For  the  ancient  limits  of  the  pagi,  see 
M.  E.  Philipon's  excellent  Origines  du  diocise  et  du  comti  de  Belley. 


76        The  possessions  of  Humbert   I   Whitehands 

of  which  was  included  in  the  later  district  of  Bugey^     Both  sections 
were  Mesorhodanic  in  speech. 

Since  these  two  sections,  (A)  and  (B),  of  the  Lyonnais  lay  apart 
from  one  another,  and  both  in  the  eleventh  century  and  later  were 
distinct  both  in  geographical  character  and  in  history,  I  take  them 
separately,  beginning  with  section  (A). 

(a)  It  is  here  that  we  find  the  earliest  charter  which  is  attributed 
with  reasonable  certainty  to  the  Humbertine  connection  (Car.  J^eg.  xi., 
above,  p.  45)  in  976.  A  priest  Amalfredus  grants  to  Cluny  land  at 
Alions  (close  to  St  Symphorien  d'Ozon)  in  the  presence  of  a  Count 
Humbert". 

This  part  of  the  Lyonnais  south  and  east  of  the  Rhone  is  also 
included  in  the  boundaries  mentioned  in  Count  Humbert  Whitehands' 
(as  I  may  now  say)  oath  to  the  Peace  of  God  at  Anse  in  1025^ 

(b)  Later  evidence.  In  1157  Humbert  III  held  fiefs  from  the 
Archbishop  of  Lyons  probably  in  this  district  ■*.  In  the  treaty  (1173) 
between  Humbert  III  and  King  Henry  II  of  England,  one  of  the 
jurors  for  Humbert  III  was  named  Guido  de  Candiaco  (Chandieu, 
near  St  Symphorien)^  while  in  the  later-formed  bailiwick  of  the  Vien- 
nois,  possessed  by  the  Counts  of  Savoy  in  1329,  and  ceded  by  them  to 
the  French  Dauphin  in  1354-5,  were  St  Symphorien  d'Ozon,  Venissieux, 
Azieux,  and  Jonages,  and  the  homages  of  St  Pierre-de-Chandieu  and 
Meyzieux,  all  in  this  district".  St  Symphorien  d'Ozon  was  already 
Savoyard  in   12 18  and   1232'. 

(r)     Of  these  domains  Jonages  was  certainly  a  late  acquisition ;  as 

^  See  for  these  boundaries  of  the  diocese  of  Lyons,  A.  Molinier,  Potiilles  dn 
Lyonnais,  from  which  the  thirteenth  century  limits  can  be  made  out.  But  to  a  certain 
extent  the  Archbishops  of  Lyons  had  encroached  on  their  neighbour  prelates,  and  in 
consequence  fluctuations  of  the  borders  in  details  had  taken  place.  'l"he  Archbishops 
of  Vienne  had  had  claims  on  Chandieu  and  Mions,  which  however  were  passing  over 
to  the  see  of  Lyons  at  the  end  of  the  tenth  centur)-.  See  M.  E.  Philipon,  Belley, 
p.  31.  One  consequence  of  these  fluctuations  is  that  we  cannot  be  sure  of  the  exact 
coincidence  of  count)'  and  diocese.  In  fact  we  know  of  instances  of  divergence.  See 
below,  p.  95. 

2  Manteyer,  Origines,  pp.  364-6. 

^  See  above,  p.  23,  and  Manteyer,  Paix,  pp.  110-23. 

*  Stumpf,  3787  {Gallia  Christiana,  IV.  (ed.  II.),  Instr.  p.   17). 

'  Gesta  Henrici  II,  Rolls  Series,  i.  38. 

^  C\hrz.x\o,  Dellejinanze  dellafnoiiarchia,  Mem.  R.  Accad.  Scienze,  Torino,  xxxvi. 
(1830),  p.  92,  and  Manteyer,  Notes  additionnelles ,  p.  287.  Jonages  came  under  the 
dominion  of  Savoy  by  cession  of  the  Sires  de  Beauvoir  in  1252  (Car.  Reg.  CMVii. , 
Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  ecc.  p.  192).  Probably  a  similar  origin  could  be  found  for 
others.  The  Beauvoir  first  did  homage  for  three-quarters  of  Meyzieux  in  1322 
(Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  261). 

^  Car.  Reg.  CDLV.  and  Wurstemberger,  op.  cit.  iv.  i9off. 


The   Lyonnais.     Section   B  'j'] 

to  the  origin  of  the  others  we  possess  no  evidence,  but  I  may  remind 
the  reader  that  Count  Humbert  Whitehands  held  lands  in  commendaf/i 
of  the  chapter  of  Vienne\  and  that  Charles-Constantine,  Count  of 
Vienne,  had  held  land  near  St  Symphorien-. 

(2)      The  Lyonnais.     Section  B. 

The  fact  that  this  district,  the  "  Terre  de  la  Montagne  "  as  most  of 
it  was  later  named,  which  lay  chiefly  on  the  western  slopes  of  the 
southern  continuation  of  the  Jura,  was  later  mostly  included  in  the 
Savoyard  baiUwick  of  Bugey,  tempts  one  to  think  that  the  county  of 
Belley  which  formed  the  kernel  of  Bugey  may  have  extended  over  this 
fraction  of  the  diocese  of  Lyons,  and  thus  have  been  larger  than  the 
little  diocese  of  Belley.  Such  was  the  case  with  the  county  of  Savoy, 
which  contained  fractions  of  the  diocese  of  Maurienne  ^  Further,  since 
the  diocese  of  Belley  belonged,  not  to  the  province  of  Lyons  or  Vienne, 
but  to  that  of  Besangon,  of  which  it  was  a  detached  portion,  it  seems 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  it  was  once  contiguous  with  the  diocese  of 
Besan^on,  and  that  the  extension  of  the  Lyonnais  over  North  Bugey 
took  place  not  much  before  the  ninth  century.  And  the  authority  of 
the  Counts  of  Belley  may  have  remained  in  some  parts  where  the 
Bishop  of  Belley  lost  his^. 

"  La  terre  de  la  Montagne,"  as  was  natural  for  a  land  of  forest- 
covered  hills,  was  a  favourite  haunt  of  monks  and  largely  in  their 
possession.  Famous  Benedictine  Abbeys,  Nantua,  St  Claude  or  St 
Oyend,  St  Rambert  and  Ambronay  were  reared  in  the  valleys  by  brook 
or  riverside  and  shared  the  dominion  of  the  land  with  the  feudal  lords. 

{a)  The  southern  part  of  this  district  lying  mainly  between  the 
Rhone  and  Brenod  is  included  in  Whitehands'  oath  at  the  council  of 
Anse  in  1025. 

(b)  In  1 1 73  Humbert  HI  had  vassals  named  from  Morestel,  just 
south  of  the  Rhone.  Further  acquisitions  are  traceable  in  the  twelfth 
century,  from  divers  rulers,  such  as  Cornillon  from  the  Abbot  of 
St  Rambert^  and  Dolomieux  from  the  Sires  de  la  Tour-du-Pin  (then 
Dauphins)^ 

The  various  intermarriages  between  ladies  of  the  Savoyard  house 
and  neighbouring  lords  both  afford  evidence  for  early  Savoyard  lands 

^  Manteyer,  Paix,  p.  96,  and  see  below,  p.  81  • 

*  Bruel,  Chartis...de  Climy,  I.  p.  748,  no.  797. 

*  See  below,  p.  95. 

*  See  Philipon,  op.  cit.  pp.  43-57. 
'  Car.  Reg.  ccci-xxxvi. 

*  Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  194;  Wurstemberger,  iv.  466;  Valbonnais,  Histoire 
de  la  Daitphint',  11.  10  and  155. 


78        The  possessions  of  Humbert  I   Whitehands 

which  passed  to  other  dynasties  and  for  the  acquisition  of  new  rights  to 
homage.  Thus  in  the  thirteenth  century  the  Sires  de  Beaujeu  did 
homage  to  the  Counts  of  Savoy  for  all  their  lands  east  of  the  Saone,  in 
the  "Terre  d'Empire^"  Part  of  these  in  the  Val-Romey  and  at  Virieu- 
le-grand  were  the  dowry  of  a  Savoyard  Countess-.  Then  they  obtained 
Miribel,  near  Lyons,  by  intermarriage ;  and  the  lord  of  Miribel  had 
been  guardian  of  Amadeus  III  of  Savoy  c.  1107,  and  so  was  probably 
allied  to  his  ward  by  marriage  ^  It  looks  as  if  homage,  in  connection 
with  the  bride's  dowry,  was  one  of  the  conditions  of  intermarriage  with 
Savoy.  In  like  manner  the  Sires  de  Coligny,  who  intermarried  with  the 
Humbertines  at  the  end  of  the  eleventh  century,  did  liege  homage  to  the 
Count  of  Savoy  in  the  thirteenth  for  the  barony  of  New  Coligny  which 
included  St  Sorlin  on  the  Rhone  and  Varey  near  Poncin  in  the  district 
now  under  discussion.  To  this  they  were  forced  in  1206  to  add  the 
homage  of  Brion  and  Rougemont  by  Nantua^  Probably  they  too 
received  a  dowry  and  added  homage  for  other  possessions  on  the  inter- 
marriage. Some  ancient  homage,  too,  in  this  district,  which  was  not 
acquired  by  Count  Peter  II  of  Savoy,  was  due  from  the  lords  of  La 
Tour-du-Pin,  Lhuis  and  Innimond  being  mentioned  in  1293  as  fiefs  held 
from  Savoy  ^ 

(c)  A  single  origin  is  evidently  unlikely  for  the  early  Humbertine 
domains  here.  The  Countship  of  Belley  may  account  for  some  of  them; 
such  as  the  homage  due  for  Lhuis  and  New  Coligny.  Some  may  be 
due  to  immune  lands  of  Whitehands.  Others  are  proved  to  be  later 
acquisitions  of  homage. 

(3)     Sermorens. 

This  county,  which  lay  entirely  in  the  modern  department  of  the 
Isere,  seems  to  have  been  originally  composed  of  fractions  of  the  pagi 

^  Wurstemberger,  iv.  338  and  345.  -  See  below,  p.  295,  n.  3. 

2  Car.  Reg.  ccxLVi.  (Guigue,  Petit  Cartiil.  de  St  Sulpice-en-Bugey,  p.  if)).  See 
below,  p.  278. 

*  Car.  Reg.  CDXIII.  (Du  Bouchet,  Preiwes  de  Vhist.  de  la  maisott  de  Coligny,  p.  41). 
The  barony  of  New  Coligny  stretched  from  Ceyzeriat  across  the  Ain  to  the  Rhone  by 
Lagnieu.  The  house  appears  here  in  the  twelfth  century.  Cf.  Guichenon,  Bresse 
et  Bugey,  in.  109,  Du  Bouchet,  op.  cit.  p.  50,  Valbonnais,  i.  180.  See  below, 
p.  377,  n.  I.     The  fact  that  the  older  homage  was  liege  shows  its  antiquity. 

^  Valbonnais,  11.  42.  The  priory  of  Innimond  was  subject  to  Savoy  in  1200 
(Car.  Reg.  CDV.)  and  in  the  diocese  of  Belley ;  Peter  II's  acquisitions  of  the  homage 
of  La  Tour-du-Pin  and  partly  of  Bourgoin  were  separate.  Cf.  below,  p.  82. 
Albert  de  la  Tour  definitely  rules  round  Lhuis  in  1202  (Guichenon,  Bibl.  Sebusiana, 
p.  80,  Cent.  I.  27).  In  1107  his  ancestor  Berlio  is  obviously  landed  there  (Valbonnais, 
I.  180);  and  I  think  that  the  Hebrardus  de  Turre,  who  appears  in  Belley  in  Marquess 
Oddo's  entourage  c.  1055  (Guigue,  Petit  Cartul.  de  St  Siilpice,  p.  27;  see  above,  p.  56), 
must  be  the  first  ancestor  of  the  house  of  La  Tour-du-Pin,  and  already  a  vassal  of 
Marquess  Oddo  of  Savoy. 


Sermorens  79 

of  the  Viennois  and  Graisivaudan.  On  the  north  it  included  St  Jean- 
•du-Bournay  and  Virieu,  but  not  La  Tour-du-Pin  or  Bourgoin.  On  the 
west  it  included  La  C6te-St- Andre,  St  Etienne-de-Geoire  and  Vinay; 
on  the  south  Pont-en-Royans ;  and  on  the  east  Les  Echelles  and 
St  Laurent-du-Pont\  It  thus  consisted  for  the  most  part  of  uplands 
leading  towards  the  western  outworks  of  the  Alpine  range  and  having 
no  natural  boundary  to  mark  it  off  from  the  Viennois  proper.  In  loii 
Sermorens.  or  at  least  its  comitatus,  was  granted  to  Queen  Ermengarde, 
who  died  later  than  1057".  A  long  quarrel  had  existed  between  the 
Archbishop  of  Vienne  and  the  Bishop  of  Grenoble  for  the  episcopal 
jurisdiction  over  the  county.  The  two  prelates  at  last  came  to  blows  on 
the  question,  but  after  some  ineffectual  treaties  the  matter  was  ended 
with  papal  sanction  in  1107  by  a  treaty  of  partition^  and  the  name 
Sermorens  for  the  district,  which  then  was  only  a  geographical  term, 
soon  disappeared.  Here,  too,  the  dialect  is  to  be  classed  as  Meso- 
rhodanic. 

{a)  Bishop  Oddo  of  Belley  resides  at  Boczozel  castle,  near  La 
C6te-St-Andre,  in  1000  and  1003.  He  leases,  and  grants  leases  of 
church-land  at  the  neighbouring  village  of  Chatonnay*.  In  1025  the 
whole  county  is  included  in  the  district  of  Whitehands'  oath  to  the 
Peace  of  God^  In  1032  Bishop  Aymon  of  Belley  acquires  a  church  at 
Charancieu,  near  Le  Pont-de-Beauvoisin,  but  this  was  on  behalf  of  his 
bishopric^  In  1042  Humbert  Whitehands  gives  to  a  Priory  of  Grenoble 
churches  at  Les  Echelles,  which  had  been  destroyed  and  which  he  had 
acquired''. 

(b)  Later,  in  1325,  the  Savoyard  possessions  in  this  district  fell  into 
the  two  bailiwicks  {bailivae)  of  Novalaise  and  the  Viennois,  which 
apparently  had  been  formed  out  of  the  south-westerly  possessions  of 
Savoy  by  Count  Peter  II ^  Besides  some  castellaniae,  which  in  origin 
belonged  to  the  county  of  Belley,  Novalaise  included  St  Laurent-du- 
Pont  and  Voirons.  While,  besides  the  castellaniae  which  had  always 
been  in  the  more  restricted  Viennois  (see  below),  the  bailiwick  of  the 

1  See  Manteyer,  Paix,  pp.  113-23,  Notes  additionnellcs,  pp.  269-72,  and  cf.  the 
list  of  places  in  Pope  Paschal  II's  Bull  of  1107  (Jaffe,  6163,  Marion,  Cartul....de 
Grenoble,  p.  i),  which  however  only  names  places  which  lay  along  the  new 
border-line. 

"^  See  above,  p.  14.     See  Car.  Reg.  Cl.it.  (Chevalier,  Cart.  S.  Aitdr,!,  p.  267). 

^  See  above,  n.  i  for  authorities. 

*  See  above,  pp.  45-6. 

^  See  above,  p.  23. 

'  See  above,  p.  51. 

'  See  above,  p.  53. 

®  Wurstemberger,  iii.  162-3. 


8o        The  possessions  of  Humbert  I   Whitehands 

Viennois  included  (in  ancient  Sermorens)  Chabons,  La  C6te-St-Andre^ 
Boczozel  and  St  Jean-de-Bournay\ 

It  seems  possible  that  the  totani  vallem  Novalesiae  mentioned  next 
to  Chambery  in  the  1173  treaty,  and  by  all  the  context  Burgundian,  not 
Italian,  included  more  than  the  little  valley  or  mestralsy  of  Novalaise 
itself  (by  Aiguebelette,  Savoy),  especially  as  there  was  a  Viscount  of 
Novalaise  in  1209-.  In  the  same  treaty  there  appears  as  juror  a  vassal 
of  the  Count  surnamed  of  Voirons^,  which  fact  supports  the  later  evi- 
dence as  regards  that  place. 

Then  by  the  treaty  of  1354-5  with  the  Dauphin  the  Count  of  Savoy 
cedes  the  demesnes  of  Les  Abrets,  Voirons,  Chabons,  La  C6te-St-Andre, 
Boczozel,  Tolvon,  Lieudieu  and  St  Jean-de-Bournay,  and  the  homages- 
of  Ornacieux-l'hote,  Chatonnay,  Villeneuve-de-Marc  and  Faramans*. 

{c)  As  far  as  we  know,  the  origin  of  these  domains  is  of  the  most 
varied  description.  The  homages  of  St  Jean-de-Bournay  and  Villeneuve- 
de-Marc  were  acquired  by  Amadeus  V  in  13 14^  But  Boczozel  and 
Chatonnay  and  Les  Echelles  go  back  to  Humbert  Whitehands.  Some 
perhaps  may  be  part  of  those  in  comme/idams  mentioned  in  the  oath  of 
1025 ;  others  may  have  been  acquired  later  by  the  doughty  Amadeus  III. 
And  of  course  some  of  these  lands  may  have  belonged  to  Queen 
Ermengarde's  county  of  Sermorens. 

This  brings  us  to  M.  de  Manteyer's  theory '^  that  on  Queen  Ermen- 
garde's death  her  county  of  Sermorens  was  divided  between  the 
Humbertines  and  the  Guigonids  (later  Dauphins).  Yet  of  this  there 
does  not  seem  to  be  any  direct  evidence.  Indeed  we  do  not  know 
where  the  demesnes  of  the  comitatus  of  Sermorens  exactly  lay.  Thus 
the  impression  we  get  from  the  material  is  that  there  was  a  multiple 
origin  of  the  domains  of  both  dynasties.  There  must  have  been,  too,  a 
considerable  amount  of  compelled  homage,  etc.,  from  weaker  seigneurs 
in  those  anarchic  times  on  the  disappearance  of  the  central  authority. 

(4)      The    Vietmois  proper. 

This  district,  as  it  existed  in  Whitehands'  time  and  before  Sermorens 
disappeared  as  an  independent  territory,  was  bounded  on  the  east  by  a 

1  Cibrario,  loc.  cit.,  Voirons,  Tolvon  and  Boczozel  were  Savoyard  in  1254. 
(Wurstemberger,  iv.  191).  Chabons  was  admitted  by  its  owner  in  1307  to  be  a 
fief  of  Savoy  in  return  for  a  payment  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  ecc.  p.  245).  St  Jean- 
de-Bournay  and  the  homage  of  Villeneuve-de-Marc  were  acquisitions  from  the 
Dauphins   (Sires  de  la  Tour-du-Pin),  in  the   peace   of   13 14    (Menabrea,    Origines 

Jiodales,  p.  429,  Valbonnais,  Histoire  de  la  Dauphin^,   11.    155). 

2  Car.  Reg.  CDXXV.  ^  Gesta  Henrici  II,  Rolls  Series,  I.  37-8. 
^  Manteyer,  Notes  additionnelles,  pp.  286-8. 

®  Valbonnais,  Hist,  de  la  Dauphim!,  Ii.  p.  155;  Menabrea,  Origines  f kodaks, 
p.  429.     See  above,  n.  i.  ^  Manteyer,  Paix,  pp.  150-2. 


The  Viennois  8i 

line  drawn  so  as  to  exclude  St  Jean-de-Bournay  and  Virieu,  and  to 
include  La  Tour-du-Pin,  Bourgoin  and  Beaurepaire'.  Beyond  the  fact 
that  it  included  the  Rhone  valley  it  did  not  greatly  differ  in  character 
from  Sermorens.     Its  speech  belongs  to  the  Mesorhodanic  group. 

(a)  Here  the  early  evidence  is  restricted  to  Whitehands'  oath  in 
1025*,  and  to  the  cession  of  a  church  in  Isle  d'Abeau  near  Bourgoin  by 
Aymon,  Bishop  of  Belley,  in  1032.  The  church,  however,  belonged  to 
his  seel  From  Whitehands'  oath  it  appears  that  the  Count's  antecessor 
held  large  lands  in  the  district  in  the  days  of  Archbishop  Theobald 
(957-1001);  and  that  he  himself  also  held  much  ifi  commendam,  chiefly, 
it  seems,  from  the  chapter  of  Vienne,  from  which  he  also  had  authority 
as  advocate.     In  1066  his  grandsons  held  a  fief  of  the  see^. 

{b)  In  1325  the  bailiwick  of  the  Viennois  included  here  the 
castellatiiae  of  St  Georges  d'Esperanches,  Falavier  and  La  Verpilliere,  as 
well  as  that  of  Septemel     In  the  cession  of  1354-5  were  included  the 

^  Manteyer,  Paix,  pp.  116-23,  especially  p.  123. 

^  See  above,  p.  23. 

^  See  above,  p.  51. 

*  Manteyer,  Paix,  pp.  95,  126,  129-38.  The  text  is,  "  In  terris  autem  sanctorum 
episcopatus  Viennensis  ecclesiae  quas  nunc  in  comunia  tenent  vel  in  antea  adquisi- 
erint  cannonici  vel  monachi  seu  sanctimoniales  malas  consuetudines  ibi  non  inponam, 
neque  per  hostes  neque  per  cavalcadas  albergarias  faciam  si  mutare  potuero  me 
sciente  etc.,"  and  "In  terris  autem  clericorum,  monachorum  et  sanctimonialium 
quas  ego  in  comanda  teneo  plus  non  accipiam  nisi  tantum  antecessor  mens  accepit  in 
tempore  Theutbaldi  archiepiscopi  Viennensis  etc."  and  (p.  97)  "  Excepto  in  illis  terris 
quae  sunt  de  meo  alodo  aut  de  beneficio  sive  de  franchiziis  sive  de  comandis,  etc." 
Cf.  below,  pp.  1 17-19.  The  mention  oifranchisia  is  an  interesting  proof  that  White- 
hands  possessed  immune  lands  as  well  as  counties.  See  Meyer,  Dettt.  u.  Franz. 
Verfassungsgeschichte,  11.  100.  For  the  fief  of  1066  see  below,  p.  224,  n.  6:  "S. 
Mauricii...de  cujus  beneficio  honorata  est." 

"  Cibrario,  loc.  cit.  St  Georges  d'Esperanches  was  acquired  from  the  Dauphin  by 
the  Archbishop  of  Lyons,  Philip  of  Savoy,  in  1266  (Wurst.  in.  58-9,  iv.  392).  It 
had  passed  to  Amadeus  V  by  1291  (Valbonnais,  Hist.  Dauph.  i.  26).  Falavier  was 
acquired  in  1250  (Car.  Reg.  DCCCXLV.,  cf.  Manteyer,  Notes  additionnelles,  p.  276). 
Septeme  was  also  acquired  from  the  Dauphin  by  Archbishop  Philip  in  1266  (Wurst. 
III.  58-9,  IV.  392),  but  was  claimed  by  his  brother  Count  Peter  II.  The  latter  is  said 
to  have  acquired  it  (or  perhaps  only  a  claim  to  it)  from  William  de  Beauvoir  in  1249 
(Valbonnais,  Hist,  des  Dauphins,  i.  269),  but  I  have  not  found  the  document.  In 
1239,  however,  William  de  Beauvoir  acknowledged  that  Septeme  was  held  by  him 
from  the  Dauphin,  and  promised  to  surrender  it  to  the  latter.  Since  all  the  Dauphin's 
lands  in  the  Viennois  were  held  from  the  Archbishop  of  Vienne,  it  follows  that  the 
Archbishop  was  supreme  suzerain  of  Septeme  (Chevalier,  Inventaire  des  Archives  dcs 
Dauphins  d.  St  Andri  de  Grenoble  en  IJ46,  p.  66,  no.  340).  Later  we  find  Philip  of 
Savoy,  then  Count,  doing  homage  to  the  Archbishop  of  Vienne,  in  1284,  and  that  this 
was  for  Septeme  is  shown  by  the  express  recognition  and  homage  of  Amadeus  V  in 
1310  (Valbonnais,  op.  cit.  11.  28,  145-6,  cf.  Menabrea,  Origines  fiodales,  p.  429,  and 
Manteyer,  Notes  additionnelles,  p.  278).  Apparently  Philip  acquired  this  Viennese 
fief  in  exchange  for  Lyonnese  castles. 

P.  o.  6 


82        The  possessions  of  Humbert  I  Whitehands 

above  domains  and  the  homages  of  the  great  barony  of  Tour-du-Pin, 
Eclose,  Les  Eparres,  St  Alban-de-Roche,  Chezeneuve,  Maubec  and 
Villette-Serpaize '. 

(r)  When  we  deduct  the  thirteenth  century  acquisitions,  such  as 
Tour-du-Pin,  obtained  by  Peter  II  in  1250*  (although  there  was  an 
older  homage  rendered  to  the  Counts  of  Savoy  for  Bourgoin^),  Septeme, 
St  Alban-de-Roche,  St  Georges  d'Esperanches,  Falavier,  Chezeneuve 
and  Maubec,  there  seems  but  little  left  to  be  inherited  from  Whitehands. 
However,  M.  de  Manteyer  has  suggested*  that  the  north  of  the  Viennois 
and  of  Sermorens,  or  at  least  of  the  Viennois,  was  enfeoffed  as  a  county 
to  Whitehands  by  Archbishop  Burchard  of  Vienne.  The  reasons  against 
his  view  which  to  me  seem  conclusive  are  as  follows : 

(i)  The  remarkable  absence  of  early  Humbertine  lands  in  the 
Viennois  proper,  which  exactly  agrees  with  the  lack  of  any  mention  of 
them  in  the  1173  treaty.  The  chief  domains  of  Savoy  lay  in  Sermorens 
and  in  the  Lyonnais,  outside  the  county  of  the  Viennois  of  which 
Burchard  had  disposal  since  1023^ 

(ii)     There  is  no  record  of  the  transaction. 

(iii)  The  expression  racione  comitaius,  used  in  1287  of  Amadeus  V's 
rights  over  Tour-du-Pin,  merely  emphasizes  the  fact  that  he  claimed  to 
be  his  uncle  Peter  II's  full  heir,  as  against  the  latter's  daughter  Beatrice®. 
Comitaius  is  at  that  time  a  general  expression  for  the  sum  of  the  posses- 
sions and  rights  of  the  chief  of  the  House  of  Savoy.  It  does  not  refer 
to  a  particular  district  or  kind  of  domains  ^ 

(iv)  Whereas  the  Dauphins  (partners  of  the  Humbertines  apud 
M.  de  Manteyer  in  the  county  of  the  Viennois  by  Archbishop  Burchard's 

1  Manteyer,  Notes  additionnelles,  pp.  ■286-8.  St  Alban-de-Roche  was  acquired  in 
1254  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  ecc.  p.  194),  Chezeneuve  and  Maubec  were  held  from 
Savoy  by  the  Sires  de  la  Toutrdu-Pin  (Dauphins)  in  1293,  but  the  homages  were 
renounced  by  Savoy  to  the  Dauphins  in  that  year  (Valbonnais,  11.  42  ;  Manteyer, 
Notes  additionnelles,  pp.  273-4).  Maubec  was  re-acquired  by  Savoy  in  1314  (Val- 
bonnais,  11.   155). 

2  Car.  Reg.  DCCCXLI.  (Wurst.  iv.  Doc.  258)  and  Wurst.  iv.  197. 

3  Car.  Reg.  DCCCLi.,  dcccliv.  Cf.  Car.  Reg.  cdlv.  This  older  homage  is 
referred  to  in  1228  (Guigue,   Cartul.  des  fiefs  de  V Eglise  de  Lyon,  p.  339). 

■*  Notes  additionnelles,  pp.  279-80;  Paix,  pp.  14O-8. 

'  See  above,  p.  19.  M.  de  Manteyer  erroneously  attributes  Sermorens  to 
Burchard. 

^  See  Wurstemberger,  in.  12 1-9,  IV.  431-8;  Cibrario,  Storia  delta  monarchia  di 
Savoia,  II.  135. 

■*  Cf.  the  treaty  of  11 73  {Gesta  Henrici  II,  Rolls  Series,  i.  37),  "totum  comi- 
tatum  suum  et  omnes  alias  terras  suas  quascunque  habet."  In  the  old  legal  sense 
Humbert  III  held  six  comitaius.  Cf.  Car.  Reg.  CCLXVI.  where  St  Maurice  Abbey  is 
described  by  Amadeus  III  in  11 28  as  "  in  comitatu  nostro." 


County  of  Belley  83 

gift)  did  do  homage  to  the  later  Archbishops  of  Vienne  for  the  county 
of  Vienne ',  the  Counts  of  Savoy  only  did  homage  to  the  Archbishops 
for  the  thirteenth  century  grant  of  Septeme^ 

(5)     County  of  Belley. 

The  pagus  Bellicensis — from  which  adjectival  form  of  the  name  the 
medieval  Beugeis  and  the  modern  Bugey  are  derived* — extended  in  the 
fourteenth  century  over  a  curious  tongue-shaped  district  situated  be- 
tween the  dioceses  of  Lyons,  Geneva,  Vienne  and  Grenoble.  From 
close  to  St  Rambert  it  stretched  past  Belley  city  to  the  Rhone  at  Yenne, 
and  then  southwards  so  as  to  include  the  north-east  shore  of  the  Lac 
du  Bourget,  Aiguebellette,  St  Genix  and  Le  Pont-de-Beauvoisin  to  the 
east  of  the  river  Guiers,  as  well  as  a  small  strip  reaching  nearly  to  La 
Tour-du-Pin  on  the  west  of  the  Guiers,  all  called  later  Petit  Bugey*, 
There  are,  however,  signs  that  the  diocese  of  Belley  had  earlier  over- 
passed these  limits.  On  the  north,  as  we  have  seen,  it  must  once  have 
reached  further  so  as  to  be  a  promontory,  not  an  island  of  the  Province 
of  Besan^on®,  and  there  is  evidence  that  in  the  twelfth  century  it  in- 
cluded some  part  of  the  Val-Romey,  later  in  the  diocese  of  Geneva,  as 
well  as  La  Motte-Servolex,  later  in  the  diocese  of  Grenoble®.  It  is  not 
likely  that  the  county  was  of  less  extent  than  the  diocese,  and  although 
with  regard  to  its  frontier  toward  Savoy  and  the  Viennois,  this  is  not  a 
very  important  matter,  it  becomes  of  weight  when  we  try  to  trace  the 
origin  of  the  Savoyard  domains  in  Val-Romey^. 

Few  more  beautiful  districts  exist  in  these  Burgundian  territories 
than  the  pagus  of  Bugey.  North  of  the  Rhone  it  lay  along  the 
southern  extremity  of  the  Jura.  Here  and  there,  as  at  Belley  itself, 
there  are  broader  tracts  of  plain,  but  the  greater  part  consists  of  either 
dale  or  gorge  overhung  with  cliffs  of  dusty  crumbling  rock.    The  narrow 

^  See  Chevalier,  Inventaire  des  Archives  des  Dauphins,  No.  431,  and  Ades 
Capitulaires  de  VEglise  de  St  Maurice  de  Vienne,  pp.  82,  102-4,  in  his  Collection 
de  Cartulaires  Dauphinois. 

"  See  above,  p.  81,  n.  5. 

*  See  Philipon,  op.  cit.  pp.  157-60. 

"•  See  Manteyer,  Paix,  pp.  112,  nn.  5  and  7,  and  Guichenon,  Hist,  de  Bresse  et  de 
Bugey,  Preuves,  p.  181. 

"  See  above,  p.  77. 

^  Tope  Innocent  II  (Jaffe,  8246,  Gallia  Christiana,  XV.  309)  mentions  Veromensis 
(Val-Romey)  and  Mota  as  archpriestdoms  of  the  diocese  in  1 142.  See  Philipon,  p.  38. 
Whitehands'  oath,  also,  by  its  boundaries  suggests  the  same  extension :  see  Manteyer, 
Paix,  p.  115.  But  that  such  an  extension  included  Le  Bourget  (Maltacena)  seems 
impossible  in  view  of  Car.  Neg.  LXXXI.  (above,  p.  55),  Car.  Keg.  LXXix.  (above, 
p.  49)  and  Car.  Reg.  LX.  (above,  pp.  48-9). 

'  See  below,  pp.  87-8. 

6—2 


34       The  possessions  of  Humbert  I  Whitehands 

winding  valleys,  now  flanked  with  vineyards,  were  in  the  eleventh 
century  wrapped  in  woods.  Low  isolated  hills,  not  infrequent  where 
the  valleys  widen,  were  at  once  seized  on  for  the  castles  of  the  feudal 
lords,  the  fragmentary  ruins  of  which  may  be  easily  discerned  to-day 
from  the  train  by  means  of  the  statue  of  Liberty  triumphantly  erected 
upon  each.  South  of  the  Rhone  in  Petit  Bugey  we  enter  on  the  similar 
mountainous  land  leading  up  to  the  Grande  Chartreuse,  to  which  the 
small  annex  west  of  the  Guiers  added  an  upland,  indistinguishable  from 
those  of  Sermorens.  The  dialect  of  the  whole  was  of  course  Meso- 
rhodanic. 

(a)  Between  995  and  1000,  Bishop  Oddo  of  Belley  gave  the 
Archbishop  Theobald  of  Vienne  a  niansus  near  Vezeronce  in  the 
county  of  Belley  (north  of  the  Rhone),  and  received  in  return  a  large 
domain  round  Traize  (near  Yenne)  also  in  the  county  of  Belley.  The 
latter  domain  stretched  from  the  Canal  de  Savieres  and  the  Mont- 
du-Chat  almost  to  St  Genix^  In  1023  we  find  Humbertines  possessing 
St  Genix  itself  in  the  same  county,  and  Whitehands  was  almost  certainly 
Count  of  Belley  ^  It  is  included  in  his  oath  to  the  Peace  of  God  in 
1025  ^  Other  evidence  for  these  possessions  may  easily  be  found  in  the 
charters,  until  at  last  Amadeus  I  takes  the  title  of  Count  of  Belley^; 
and  Marquess  Oddo  I  succeeds  him^ 

{b)  The  later  evidence  need  only  be  referred  to  in  three  cases  : 
(i)  Humbert  III  claimed  the  regalia  in  the  lands  of  the  Bishop  of 
Belley,  and  the  spolia  on  the  Bishop's  death".  The  regalian  rights 
were  however  granted  away  to  the  Bishop  by  the  Emperor  Frederick 
Barbarossa  in  1175".  (ii)  Humbert  III  in  11 73  promised  the  county 
to  John  of  England,  along  with  his  two  chief  castles  there,  Rossillon 
and  Pierrechatel*.  (iii)  In  1354-5  the  district  west  of  the  rivers  Rhone 
and  Guiers,  i.e.  the  castellania  of  the  Isle  de  Ciers,  was  ceded  to  the 
Dauphin.  It  then  formed  part  of  the  bailiwick  of  Novalaise  which 
also  included  all  Belley  south  of  the  Rhone  and  east  of  the  Guiers". 

(c)  Now  how  did  the  county  of  Belley  get  conferred  on  the 
Humbertines?     We  may  suspect  Whitehands  was  Count  already  in 

^  See  above,  p.  46,  and  Manteyer,  Origines,  pp.  367-8. 

2  See  above,  pp.  47,  58,  and  61.  *  See  above,  p.  23. 

*  Car.  Reg.  cxxxviii.  (1051);  see  above,  p.  55. 
'  See  above,  p.  56. 

*  See  below,  pp.  330-1,  426. 

'  See  below,  pp.  342,  426.  The  diploma  only  has  "  concessimus."  There  is  no 
mention  of  any  antecedent  right  of  the  Bishop  to  the  regalia.  An  agreement  was 
come  to  in  1290  as  to  the  territorial  limits  of  the  Bishop's  jurisdiction,  the  regalia 
question  being  reserved. 

^  See  below,  pp.  339-41. 

^  Manteyer,  Notes  additionnelles,  p.  287;  Cibrario,  loc.  cit.,  see  above,  p.  79. 


Pagus  Equestricus  85 

1003.  Who  gave  it  him?  M.  de  Manteyer's  view^  is  that  his  brother, 
Oddo,  Bishop  of  Belley,  was  given  the  county  by  Rudolf  III  among  the 
latter's  other  grants  to  bishops,  and  then  enfeoffed  it  to  Humbert  I. 
Against  this  hypothesis  may  be  urged:  (i)  There  is  no  record  of  either 
grant;  (ii)  You  would  expect  some  trace  of  the  Bishop's  superiority; 
but  on  the  other  hand  we  find  the  Count  claiming  the  regalia  and  the 
spolia,  two  strong  presumptions  of  feudal  suzerainty,  while  the  Bishop 
only  gets  free  from  the  Count  by  imperial  grant.  That  the  Count 
should,  hke  the  counts  and  viscounts  of  Provence  ^  have  obtained  in 
practice  the  suzerainty  over  the  bishops  in  his  counties  is  natural 
enough.  There  seems  no  occasion  to  postulate  an  episcopal  inter- 
mediary to  explain  his  possession  of  the  counties. 

(6)     Pagus  Equestricus. 

This  district  lay  round  Nyon  and  north  of  Geneva,  to  the  diocese  of 
which  it  belonged.  Its  eastern  boundary  was  formed  by  the  Lake  of 
Geneva,  its  western  by  the  heights  which  divide  the  river  Semine  from 
the  river  Valserine  and  the  watershed  of  the  Ain.  Thus  it  crossed  the 
main  range  of  the  Jura  mountains.  Like  those  of  the  surrounding 
districts,  its  denizens  were  of  Mesorhodanic  speech. 

{a)  Count  Humbert  acted  as  agent  in  a  transfer  in  1018'  to 
Romainmotier. 

{b)  About  1 1 20  Amadeus  III  is  asked  by  Emperor  Henry  V  to 
intervene  in  favour  of  Romainmotier^  in  a  neighbouring /^^«5.  In  1 140 
the  same  prince  gave  limits  to,  if  he  did  not  found,  the  Abbey  of 
Chezery  on  the  Valserine.  But  Chezery  had  belonged  to  St  Victor  of 
Geneva,  and  Humbert  II  c.  iioo  had  already  been  advocate  of  that 
abbey  ^  The  supreme  dominion  in  the  district,  however,  remained  with 
the  House  of  Savoy  until  the  French  Revolution. 

(c)  No  explanation  seems  to  be  forthcoming  for  this  appearance  of 
VVhitehands  in  Equestricus.     He  could  hardly  have  been  its  Count  ^ 

^  Manteyer,  Origines,  pp.  426-7,  514. 

^  See  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  pp.  3'22-5. 

'  See  above,  p.  46. 

*  M.D.R.  III.  439. 

'  See  below,  pp.  271  and  296.  See  also  L.  Bollea,  Le  Prime  Kelazioni  fra  la 
casa  di  Savoia  e  Ginevra,  pp.  59  and  71.  The  damaged  charter.  Car.  Sup.  xxx. 
(MJm.  Doc.  Gentve,  I.  II.  145),  contains  the  evidence  for  Humbert  II's  advocacy  of 
St  Victor  of  Geneva  c.  1099.  It  is  a  deed  of  gift  from  Boso,  Bishop  of  Aosta,  to 
St  Victor,  in  return  for  another  gift  to  himself  and  his  canons.  Boso's  gift  is  made 
"  Laudante...canonicis  et  advocatis  ejusdem  loci  Uberto  comite  at  Aimone  et  Ugone." 
Aymon  is  perhaps  the  Count  of  the  Genevois  of  that  name. 

®  Another  Count,  Lambert,  appears  in  the  document,  and  the  county  of  Vaud 
then  belonged  to  the  Bishop  of  Lausanne.  Signor  Bollea,  Le  Prime  Relazioni, 
p.  51,  thinks  Humbert  must  have  been  Count  of  Equestricus. 


86        The  possessions  of  Humbert  I  Whitehands 

We  know  of  no  land  of  his  there.  Perhaps  it  only  shows  his  influence 
with  the  royal  house,  one  of  whose  monasteries  Romainmotier  was. 
Amadeus  III  probably  intervened  at  Chezery  on  the  river  Valserine  as 
advocate  of  St  Victor  of  Geneva  like  his  father.  In  any  case  it  is 
probable  that  by  inheritance  and  war  his  influence  towards  Geneva 
was  increasing^ 

(7)     The  Genevois. 

The  diocese  of  Geneva  included  two  counties,  those  of  the  Genevois 
and  Equestricus.  The  latter  has  already  been  dealt  with,  the  former 
was  presumably  once  co-extensive  with  the  remainder  of  the  diocese. 
The  latter,  excluding  Equestricus,  in  the  fourteenth  century  stretched 
from  the  city  of  Geneva  southwards  so  as  to  include  Alby  and  Annecy 
and  to  reach  to  Mont  Blanc.  From  west  to  east  it  extended  from 
Brenod  on  the  river  Albarine  to  Samoens  and  Mont  Blanc,  thus  in- 
cluding New-Chablais".  Of  this  territory  the  Val-Romey  was  certainly 
almost  wholly  in  the  diocese  of  Geneva  already  in  the  ninth  century', 
but  as  I  have  remarked  above  under  Belley,  it  is  probable  that  a  fraction 
of  the  southern  part  of  this  valley  belonged  to  the  bishopric  of  Belley*. 
With  this  exception,  the  ecclesiastical  allegiance  of  the  district  remained 
unchanged ;  but  we  find  that  the  county  of  the  Genevois  by  the  year 
1100  has  suffered  disruption  ^  The  Bishop  of  Geneva  holds  the  city. 
The  Count  of  the  Genevois,  who  resides  at  Annecy,  rules  over  the  land 
from  thence  as  far  as  Geneva.  The  district  on  the  south  of  Lake 
Geneva  (New-Chablais)^  and  another,  including  the  Val-Romey  and 
stretching  to  the  west  and  south  of  Lac  d'Annecy'',  are  held  by  the  Count 
of  Savoy,  who  owes  no  homage  for  them  save  to  the  Emperor,  while 
Faucigny,  i.e.  the  watershed  of  the  Arve  and  the  Giffre,  forms  an  inde- 
pendent barony,  which  however  owes  ancient  homage  to  the  Count  of 
the  Genevois*.  In  the  earlier  time,  too,  we  find  traces  of  these 
divisions.  There  is,  for  instance,  the  pagus  Albanensis  which  is  the 
southerly  district^  The  whole  pagus  of  course  was  Mesorhodanic  in 
speech.  In  configuration  it  was  thoroughly  Alpine,  composed  of 
wooded  heights  intersected  by  narrow  valleys,  although  the  table-like 
mountains  round  the  Lake  of  Annecy  have  a  character  of  their  own. 

^  See  below,  pp.  88  and  383-4. 

^  See  Lullin  et  Lefort,  Rigeste  Genevois,  p.  391,  No.  1568  and  its  map. 

^  See  Philipon,  pp.  31-2.  *  See  above,  p.  83. 

'  See  Menabrea,  Origines  fiodales,  pp.  275-89. 

*  See  Menabrea,  op.  cit.  pp.  344-6,  and  Cibrario,  loc.  cit. 

"^  Cf.  below,  p.  87,  and  Cibrario,  loc.  cit.,  and  cf.  Menabrea,  op.  cit.  pp.  384-5, 
405-6.     Cf.  Guigue,  Topographic  hist,  de  PAin,  p.  xxxvi. 

*  Menabrea,  Origines  fiodales,  p.  351. 

^  Menabrea,  Origittes  fiodales,  pp.  224  and  405. 


The  Genevois  87 

{a)  In  1022  we  find  Whitehands  owning  land  at  Cusy  (near  Alby 
on  borders  of  Savoy  proper)  and  receiving  a  lease  at  Ambilly  near 
Geneva^  About  1031  he  is  chief  adviser  in  the  foundation  of  Talloires 
on  the  Lac  d'Annecy  by  Queen  Ermengarde^  In  1036  he  acts  as  the 
Queen's  advocate  in  the  Genevois  I  In  1019  one  may  note  that  the 
Anselmids  owned  land  by  Evian  in  New-Chablais^.  The  Abbey  of 
St  Maurice  also  held  land  in  the  Genevois  ^ 

(b)  Later  we  find  New-Chablais,  including  Thonon,  AUinges,  Evian 
and  Feterne  and  the  monasteries  of  Abbondance  and  Aulphs,  subject 
to  the  Counts  of  Savoy®,  as  well  as  a  territory  on  the  south-west  stretch- 
ing from  Cusy  towards  Fa  verges;  but  it  seems  this  was  a  later  acquisition. 
Count  Thomas  was  a  vassal  of  the  Bishop  of  Geneva  in  1211^.  On  the 
other  hand  in  1 140-4  Amadeus  III  founded  the  Chartreuse  of  Arvieres 
on  the  heights  of  the  Grand  Colombier  above  the  Val-Romey*;  and  a 
little  earlier  he  seems  to  have  granted  the  entire  Val-Romey,  with 
Virieu-le-grand  in  the  diocese  of  Belley,  to  his  daughter  Alice  de 
Beaujeu  as  her  dowry".  In  1257  Dorches  by  the  Rhone  near  Seyssel 
was  held  of  Savoy'";  and  in  1325  Seyssel  and  Lompnes  near  Haute ville 
formed  castellaniae  of  the  bailiwick  of  Bugey". 

(c)  The  origin  of  these  Savoyard  domains  in  New-Chablais 
and   elsewhere  is   another   mystery.      Perhaps   one   may   suggest   six 

'  See  above,  p.  47. 

2  See  above,  p.  50. 

•*  See  above,  p.  52. 

■*  See  above,  p.  67. 

^  Car.  Keg.  Lxxxvi.  {M.H.P.  Chart.  I.  499),  and  cf.  Car.  Reg.  CCXLVII. 
(Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  29),  and  id.  CCLXXIX.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  48). 

''  See  Menabrea,  op.  cit.  pp.  344-6.  Aulphs  was  an  alod  of  Humbert  II, 
c.  HOC,  and  Gerard  d'AUinges  his  feudatory;  see  Car.  Keg.  ccxLll.  (Guichenon, 
Preuves,  p.  44).  Cf.  also  Car.  Keg.  cCLXXix.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  48), 
where  in  1 138  Amadeus  acts  as  advocate  of  St  Maurice  and  suzerain  of  the  Allinges 
who  have  seized  two  villae  of  the  monks.  See  below,  pp.  299-300.  Amadeus  III 
of  Savoy  protected  St  Jorioz  priory  on  the  Lac  d'Annecy  (Car.  Reg.  CCL.,  Guichenon, 
Preuves,  p.  35).  His  seigneury  over  Abbondance  in  Neyv-Chablais  (Car.  Reg. 
CCXLVII.,  Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  29)  is  due  to  his  lay-abbacy  of  St  Maurice  (see 
below,  p.  93).  Signor  Bollea  {Le  Prime  Relazioni,  pp.  14-15)  shows  that  Tetburga, 
ancestress  of  the  Counts  of  the  Genevois  and  Sires  de  Faucigny,  was  probably 
a  Humbertine.  Manteyer,  Notes  additionnelks,  pp.  440-1,  considers  her  a  daughter 
of  Amadeus  I.     Cf.  below,  p.  m. 

'  Menabrea,  Origines  fiodalcs,  pp.  384-5,  405-6.  Among  Humbert  Ill's  jurors 
in  1 1 73  are  knights  surnamed  de  Faverges,  de  Rumilly  and  de  Nangy,  from  the 
South  Genevois.     P'or  the  homage  to  the  Bishop  of  Geneva,  see  Car.  Reg.  CDXXX. 

*  See  below,  p.  297. 

"  See  lielow,  p.  295,  n.  3,  and  p.  340,  n.  i. 

'^  Wurstemberger,  iv.  237. 

"  Cibrario,  Delle  Finanze  della  Monarchia  (Mem.  Accad.  Sc.  Torino,  XXXVI.) 
(1830),  p.  92. 


88       The  possessions  of  Humbert  I   Whitehands 

concomitant  causes:  an  inheritance  from  the  Anseltnids,  the  conquest  of 
Burgundy  by  Conrad  the  Sahc',  the  acquisition  of  the  temporaUties  of 
St  Maurice-Agaune,  a  possible  dowry  with  the  possibly  Genevoise  wife 
of  Amadeus  IP,  the  possible  extension  of  the  county  of  Belley  over 
the  Val-Romey,  and  lastly  petty  wars  which  compelled  homage. 
Humbert's  share  in  the  war  of  1034  would  be  one  good  opportunity. 
As  we  shall  see  the  acquisition  of  the  temporalities  of  St  Maurice  had 
occurred  by  1070^.  I  may  note  in  passing  that  Annecy,  the  chief  town 
of  the  Counts  of  the  Genevois,  had  been  a  possession  of  Queen 
Ermengarde*.     How  did  they  get  it? 

(8)     Aosia. 

The  county,  diocese  and  valley  of  Aosta — for  here  civil,  ecclesiasti- 
cal and  geographical  limits  are  strictly  identical — forms  one  of  the  most 
interesting  districts  which  the  Humbertines  have  ruled.  One  of  their 
earliest  possessions,  it  is  still  in  their  hands.  Together  with  Suisse 
romande  and  Basel,  it  is  the  only  fragment  of  the  neo-Burgundian  or, 
to  use  a  later  term,  Arelate  kingdom  which  has  escaped  absorption  in 
encroaching  France.  Its  dialect,  which  is  still  Mesorhodanic,  in  spite 
of  the  official  propagation  of  Italian ^  is  reminiscent  of  the  Burgundian 
rule  and  settlement,  if  it  does  not  indeed  go  back  to  still  earlier  Keltic 
racial  divisions.  The  whole  valley  is  full  of  memories  of  the  past.  We 
can  still  look  down  on  a  Roman  rectangular  town  in  Aosta  with  frag- 
ments of  classic  walls,  its  theatre  and  triumphal  arch.  Those  very  walls 
are  completed  with  medieval  masonry  and  surround  modern  dwellings. 
Beside  the  church  of  St  Ours  there  still  stands  its  eleventh  century  cam- 
panile with  romanesque  windows  and  solid  stonework,  a  building  for  the 
age  of  anarchy.  Close  by  are  the  contemporary  cloisters,  with  the 
quaint  humour  and  infantine  solemnity  of  their  carved  pillar  capitals. 
And  beyond  to  the  north  curves  the  valley  of  the  Buthier  leading  to  the 
Great  St  Bernard,  the  ancient  road  along  which  all  the  generations  of 
mankind  have  passed,  neolithic  herdsmen,  Kelts,  legionaries,  Germans, 
medieval  trader,  monk  and  knight,  and  Napoleon  with  his  cannon  and 
cuirassiers  barely  more  than  a  century  ago.  Above  again  rise  the  white 
Alpine  peaks  which  have  seen  the  track  first  trodden  in  years  far  beyond 
the  earliest  tradition,  and  will  perhaps  once  more  see  it  without  foot- 
step or  voice. 

^  See  above,  p.  37. 
^  See  below,  p.  242. 
^  See  below,  p.  92. 

*  See  above,  p.  15. 

*  Official  inscriptions  are  still  written  in  ordinary  French,  in  which  also  the  Town 
Council  conducts  its  debates. 


Aosta  '        89 

The  valley,  that  bears  witness  so  remarkably  to  its  earlier  history, 
owes  much  of  its  singularity  to  the  fact  that  it  forms  a  peculiarly 
defensible  alcove,  so  to  say,  of  the  Alps.  Its  northern  limit  is  furnished 
by  the  main  range  of  the  Pennine  Alps,  so  that  geographically  it  falls  in 
Italy.  But  from  the  Lombard  plain  it  is  separated  by  the  eastern  ex- 
tension of  the  Graian  Alps,  the  massif  of  the  Gran  Paradiso,  and  the 
only  outlet,  where  the  river  Dora  Baltea  passes  on  its  way  to  join  the  Po 
is  by  a  narrow  defile,  blocked  by  a  precipitous  hill  on  which  stands  the 
fort  of  Bard.  Thus  a  military  frontier  was  even  more  easily  drawn  there 
than  on  the  ridge  of  the  Alps  traversed  by  numerous  routes ;  while  the 
climate,  which  is  Alpine  and  far  nearer  that  prevailing  in  the  Vallais  or 
Tarentaise  than  that  of  Lombardy  made  the  manners  of  the  Aostans 
more  akin  to  those  of  their  northern  than  those  of  their  southern  neigh- 
bours. From  another  point  of  view  the  Val  d' Aosta  consists  of  the 
watershed  of  the  Dora  Baltea.  Torrent  after  torrent  brings  its  waters 
through  a  narrow  wooded  (too  often  once-wooded)  glen  down  to  the 
main  valley  created  by  their  confluence.  The  latter,  from  the  village  of 
Sarre  to  the  feudal  towers  of  Chatillon,  forms  a  pleasant  strath  of 
meadow  and  corn-land  with  vineyards  on  its  flanks.  Then  it  again 
becomes  a  defile,  growing  narrower  and  narrower  till  it  reaches  its 
straitest  part  and  its  sudden  close  at  Bard.  Of  the  tributary  vales  two 
have  historical  importance.  The  Little  St  Bernard  is  reached  by  the 
Val  de  la  Thuile  which  is  thus  the  route  for  Tarentaise  and  Savoy. 
And  in  contrast  to  this  domestic  artery,  the  world-route  of  the  Great  St 
Bernard  passed  down  the  western  valley  of  the  Buthier.  Its  northern 
outlet,  as  we  shall  see,  was  in  the  Vallais,  and  over  it  passed  the  Rhine- 
land  trade  with  its  ofl"shoots  in  Scandinavia  and  England. 

The  political  allegiance  of  the  Val  d'Aosta  had  been  definitely 
settled  only  just  before  the  Humbertines  appeared  there.  It  had  been 
conquered  from  the  Lombards  by  the  Merovingian  King  Guntram 
c.  575^  and  was  thus  linked  with  the  neighbouring  Burgundian  pagi. 
But  in  the  Carolingian  sub-divisions  of  the  ninth  century,  it  was  annexed 
to  Italy,  and  in  the  mid  tenth  century  as  late  as  969  was  certainly 
Italian-.  Then  in  994  the  Anselmid  Bishop  Anselm  of  Aosta  appears 
with  his  metropolitan,  the  Archbishop  of  Tarentaise,  at  the  Burgundian 
synod  of  Anse,  and  later  the  same  prelate  was  Arch-chancellor  of 
Burgundy  ^  Hence  it  seems  likely  that  the  acquisition  of  the  county 
by  the  Burgundian  kings  was  connected  with  the  expulsion  of  the 
Saracens  from  the  Alps  and  the  Great  St  Bernard  in  972-5.  The 
acquiescence  of  the  Emperors,  Otto  I  and  Otto  II,  was  probably  due 

'  Hodgkin,  Italy  and  her  Invaders,  V.  223-4. 
*  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  p.  181. 
'  See  above,  p.  10,  n.  4. 


90       The  possessions  of  Humbert  I   Whitehands 

to  the  fact  that  they  saw  the  power  of  the  Anscarid  Marquess  of  Ivrea, 
Conrad,  weakened  thereby :  inasmuch  as  the  last  Italian  Count  of 
Aosta  had  been  King  Adalbert,  son  of  the  Anscarid  Berengar  II  whom 
Otto  the  Great  conquered'.  The  victory  of  a  Mesorhodanic  over  a 
Lombard  dialect  would  be  assisted  by  the  long  political  connection  that 
followed  this  annexation. 

I  have  discussed  fully  the  evidence  for  the  possession  of  this  Bur- 
gundian  frontier  county  by  Whitehands  and  his  successors  in  Section  ii. 
of  this  chapter^  So  here  I  will  only  mention  the  subject  of  the  enfeoff- 
ment of  the  county  to  him  by  the  Bishop  Anselm  c.  1024  according  to 
M.  de  Manteyer's  theory^.  The  arguments  for  this  view  appear  to  be : 
(i)  the  charter  of  the  Bishop-Count  Anselm  dated  923  (corrected  to 
1023)*;  (ii)  the  fact  that  Whitehands  appears  as  Count  in  1032  after 
two  of  his  relatives  had  occupied  the  see* ;  (iii)  that  the  bishops  in  1 191 
had  by  ancient  custom  a  right  to  a  third  part  of  the  tallages  and  other 
levies  of  the  city^  These  reasons  do  not  seem  very  strong;  on  the 
other  side  we  may  say  :  (I)  the  charter  of  923  is  a  forgery,  and  that  in 
any  case  it  need  not  mean  more  than  that  a  certain  Bishop  was  also 
Count  or  vice  versa'' ;  (II)  that  (ii)  proves  nothing  by  itself ;  (III)  the 
Bishop  might  very  well  have  a  grant  of  the  one-third  of  the  city's 
revenue  from  the  Count  or  the  King.  It  was  not  the  one-third  from  all 
the  county^  Besides  there  is  not  the  slightest  sign  then  or  later  of 
any  superiority  of  the  Bishops  over  the  Counts.  On  the  contrary,  in 
1024  and  1026  Whitehands  confirms  Bishop  Burchard's  transactions,  in 
the  latter  case  the  bishop  dealing  with  a  benefice  he  holds  of  the 

^  See  the  complaint  of  Bishop  Giso  {Gallia  Christiana,  xii.  485).  I  follow  Savio, 
Gli  antichi  vescovi,  pp.  84-5,  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  p.  181,  and  Hellman,  Die 
Grafen  v.  Savoyen,  p.  4,  against  Gabotto  and  Patrucco  (Miscellanea  Valdosiana, 
B.S.S.S.  XVII.  pp.  lix.  ff.),  in  considering  this  document  in  substance  genuine,  it  being 
inconceivable  that  a  thirteenth  century  forger  should  invent  Adalbert  as  Count  of 
Aosta  c.  960.  For  a  forger's  purpose,  a  solemn  grant  of  Whitehands  would  be  more 
suitable.  And  unless  the  Anscarid  Adalbert  were  really  Count,  no  tradition  would 
make  him  so  :  the  Italian  domination  was  so  transitory. 

^  See  above,  pp.  19-21. 

^  Manteyer,  Origines,  pp.  387-9. 

*  For  this  and  references,  see  above,  p.  19,  n.  4. 

'  This  is  barely  correct.  In  1024  (Car.  Reg.  LVii.  Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  (100)) 
and  1026  (Car.  Keg.  LIX.  Misc.  di  Star.  ital.  xvi.  (1877),  ed.  BoUati)  Whitehands 
appears  as  Count  of  the  valley  and  suzerain  of  the  bishop. 

*  Car.  Reg.  CCCLXXX.  [M.H.P.  Chart,  i.  980),  "  terciam  partem  tallearum  et 
exactionum  que  in  ipsa  urbe  et  suburbio  fiebant  ad  episcopum  ex  antiqua  consuetudine 
pertinere."     See,  too,  M.H.P.  Chart,  i.  795  (1151).     Cf.  below,  p.  432. 

^  See  above,  p.  19.     The  date  923  seems  firmly  established. 

*  Cf.  the  one-third  of  the  court-revenue  of  Govone,  enjoyed  by  the  Bishop  of  Asti's 
vassal  there  in  11 17,  the  Bishop,  who  was  also  Count,  taking  the  other  two-thirds. 
Gabotto,  Libra  verde...d'Asii,  i.  B.S.S.S.  XXV.  p.   247. 


Old-Chablais  and  the  Vallais  91 

comitatus^.  Adelaide,  too,  clearly  was  the  bishop's  superior  c.  1064^ 
Then  Amadeus  III  gave  up  the  expoliatio,  first  of  the  Aostan  canons 
(c.  1011-22),  and  then  (1147)  of  the  bishop  himself,  both  attributes  of 
suzerainty  more  than  of  vassalage^.  The  see  of  Aosta  did  not  even  get 
a  grant  like  that  to  Belley*  from  the  Hohenstaufen.  On  the  other 
hand  it  seems  probable  that  the  fact  that  the  Anselmids  possessed 
land  in  Val  d' Aosta'  may  have  been  a  concomitant  cause  of  the 
acquisition  of  the  county  by  Humbert  Whitehands. 
{9)     Abbey  of  St  Maurice,   Old-Chablais  and  the  Vallais. 

The  great  European  trade-route  which  ran  through  Aosta  descended 
from  the  Col  of  the  Great  St  Bernard  into  the  district  of  the  Vallais,  i.e. 
the  pagus  of  the  upper  valley  of  the  Rhone.  Starting  from  the  source  of 
that  river,  the  main  valley  soon  widens  to  an  extensive  strath  on  each 
side  of  its  broad  and  stony  bed,  which  in  the  eleventh  century  was 
surrounded  by  dense  thickets.  The  general  direction  of  river  and  vale 
is  south-westerly  as  far  as  Martigny,  the  older  cathedral  city  of  the 
diocese  before  the  more  defensible  Sion  on  its  double  rock  was  chosen 
in  its  stead.  On  the  north  there  are  but  steep  short  glens,  for  the 
crests  of  the  Bernese  Alps  are  close  to  the  valley  ;  but  to  the  south 
there  wind  long  narrow  valleys  into  the  heart  of  the  Pennine  range. 
The  longest  of  these  latter  is  the  Val  d'Entremont,  down  which  the 
St  Bernard  road  runs  to  meet  the  Rhone  at  Martigny.  Thence  the 
Rhone  turns  abruptly  to  the  north-west  and  flows  through  a  soon 
narrowing  strath  till  it  reaches  the  ancient  abbey  town  of  Agaunum, 
now  called  St  Maurice  from  its  patron-saint.  St  Maurice  was  not  only 
important  as  a  sacred  spot ;  it  commanded  the  St  Bernard  route,  for 
just  north  of  it  the  highroad  crossed  the  river  and  the  valley  contracts 
almost  to  a  defile,  only  to  widen  again  into  a  broad  tract  of  erstwhile 
marshland,  the  original  Chablais — Caputlacense — at  the  head  of  the 
Lake  of  Geneva. 

'  Car.  Reg.  LVii.  and  LIX,  In  the  latter  the  land  of  St  John  (cathedral)  and  de 
comitatu  is  bounded  on  two  sides  by  the  comitatus.  Now  if  the  comitatus  was  held 
de  terra  S.Joannis,  the  latter  would  be  the  boundary- land  :  the  whole  being  greater 
than  its  part.     The  comitatus  of  course  is  the  comital  lands,  not  the  district. 

^  See  below,  p.  268,  n.  2,  and  cf.  St  Peter  Damian's  phrase  in  the  same  opusculum 
(B.  Petri  Damiani . . .  O/^ra  Omnia,  Paris,  1663,  iii.  181),  "In  ditione  vero  tua  quae 
in  duorum  regnorum,  Italiae  scilicet  et  Burgundiae  porrigitur,  non  breve  confinium, 
plures  episcopantur  antistites."  This  is  good  evidence,  too,  for  the  Bishops  of 
Maurienne  and  Belley. 

*  Car.  Reg.  CCLVi.  and  id.  ccxcv.  (M.H.P.  Chart.  I.  794),  "tarn  domus 
episcopalis  quam  etiam  possessionum  ac  reddituum  ejusdeni."  There  may  have 
been  a  mutual  vassalage,  for  the  Viscount  held  the  vidomnate  (presumably  over 
the  episcopal  lands)  not  from  the  Bishop  direct,  but  from  the  Count.  See  below, 
p.  444,  and  App.  of  Docs.,  No.   iii. 

*  See  above,  p.  84.  '  See  above,  p.  67. 


92        The  possessions  of  Humbert  I   Whitehands 

Even  in  Whitehands'  time  the  pagus  was  bilingual,  the  upper  valley 
from  the  Furka  Pass  to  Brieg  having  been  Germanized  a  century  or  two 
before,  and  the  rest  speaking  a  form  of  Mesorhodanic,  except  perhaps 
some  Swabian  colonies  in  Chablais^ 

The  county  of  the  Vallais  originally  included  all  its  present  territory ; 
but  the  domains  of  St  Maurice  were  early  formed  into  an  immunity  by 
themselves ;  always  in  lay  hands  and  long  in  those  of  the  royal  house  of 
Jurane  Burgundy^  They  spread  beyond  the  Vallais  in  all  directions; 
but  only  the  domains  in  New-Chablais^  the  Vallais  itself  and  in  Aosta 
concern  us  here.  The  county  of  the  Vallais,  with  the  royal  immunity 
of  St  Maurice  of  course  deducted,  was  granted  to  the  bishops  of  Sion 
in  999*.  While  the  Vallaisian  land  of  St  Maurice  (i.e.  Old-Chablais 
or  Agaunum)  forms  in  the  eleventh  century  a  separate  pagus,  Caput- 
lacense^  the  castle  of  Chillon  and  the  little  Vaudois  district,  outside  the 
Vallais  between  the  Eau-froide  and  Vevey,  were  fiefs  owning  the  Bishop 
of  Sion's  suzerainty®. 

{a)  We  find  the  Anselmids  possessors  of  land  at  Orsieres,  at  Sierre, 
at  Ayent  and  elsewhere  in  the  Vallais.  From  Count  Ulric  these  lands 
descended  to  his  nephew  Bishop  Aymon  of  Sion,  the  Humbertine,  who 
gave  them  to  his  see  in  1052^  But  there  was  also  the  provostship  of 
St  Maurice  which,  after  being  held  by  the  Anselmid  Bishop  Anselm  of 
Aosta*,  passed  to  the  Humbertine  Burchard  III  of  Lyons^  Then  we 
find  Bishop  Aymon  of  Sion  Provost  in  1046  and  Abbot  in  1050^*^. 
Burchard  III  succeeded  his  brother  as  Abbot  by  1057".  In  1067-9  we 
find  again  an  Abbot  Burchard ^^  who  may  be  Burchard  III  of  Lyons, 
then  an  old  man.  In  1070  Adelaide  of  Turin  governed  Agaunum, 
which  she  could  only  do  as  co-regent  with  her  two  sons^^ 

^  See  Grober,  Grundriss  der  romanischen  Philologie,  i.  722  and  546. 
2  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  pp.  327-30. 

*  Cf.  above,  pp.  86-8.  ■*  See  above,  p.  8. 

*  See  M.H.P.  Chart.  11.  27,  where  Vouvry  is  in  pago  Caputlacensis,  and  Car, 
Reg.  cxLiv.  (M.H.P.  Chart.  11.  153).  The  first  of  these  has  been  misdated  in  the 
Cartulary  copy  921,  but  the  other  elements  of  the  date,  second  year  of  King  Henry, 
die  lovis,  xvill.  Kal.  Mai.,  show  conclusively  that  1041  is  the  correct  year.  This 
error  in  the  copy  has  escaped  notice  hitherto  (cf.  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  p.  276). 

^  Car.  Peg,  dxl.  (Gremaud,  M.D.R.  xviil.  418,  420),  Chillon  was  a  fief  held 
from  the  Bishop  of  Sion,  cf.  Gremaud,  M.D.R.  xxix.  436  (c.  1250):  "Feodum 
comitis  Sabaudie  quidquid  est  ab  Aqua  frigida  usque  ad  Clusam  de  Chillon,  excepta 
mareschacia  de  Compensie  que  est  episcopo." 

'■  See  above,  pp.  56  and  64,  Car.  Reg.  CXLV.  (Gremaud,  M.D.R.  xviii.  340-5). 

^  See  above,  p.  ir,  n.  i.  *  See  above,  p.  20  and  n,  i. 

1"  See  above,  pp.  54  and  55.  ^^  See  above,  p.  64,  n.  2. 

^^  See  above,  p.  73,  n.  i. 

^^  Car.  Reg.  clxxi.  [M.G.H.  Script.  XI.  480),  "suae  (Adelheidae)  quippe  ditioni 
locus  (S.  Mauritii  Agauni)  cedebat." 


Old-Chablais  and  the  Vallais  93 

{b)  Amadeus  III  calls  himself  Comes  et  Abbas  of  St  Maurice  in 
1116^  when  he  yielded  Leuk  and  Naters  to  the  bishopric  of  Sion  the 
first  time.  In  iiaS'*  and  1143^  he  and  his  brother  Raynald  restored 
the  freedom  of  the  Abbey,  and  in  11 38*  we  find  him  calling  himself  its 
advocatus.  The  main  part  of  the  domains,  along  with  the  supreme 
jurisdiction,  seems  to  have  been  kept  by  the  Counts,  however',  who 
possessed  as  well  Chillon*,  the  Val  de  Bagnes^  and  Val  d'Entremont^ 
They  formed  in  1325  the  castellaniae  of  Chillon,  St  Maurice,  Entre- 
monts  and  (?)  Vevey. 

In  addition  we  find  in  1325^  the  Counts  possess  other  domains 
stretching  up  the  Vallais,  and  forming  the  castellaniae  of  Saxon,  Saillon 
and  Conthey.  Saillon  was  obtained  in  1231'".  I  do  not  find  when  the 
other  two  were  acquired  ;  but  the  Sires  de  Saillon  were  vassals  of  Savoy, 
already  c.  1125,  and  the  Sires  de  Conthey  in  11 79". 

There  remains  to  discuss  the  right  to  invest  the  bishops  of  Sion  with 
the  regalia  of  the  Vallais,  which  the  later  Counts  of  Savoy  exercised. 
The  first  we  hear  of  this  right  is  in  1167,  when  Frederick  Barbarossa 
granted  the  right  of  investiture  with  the  regalia  and  the  imperial  advocacy 
of  the  three  sees  of  Geneva,  Lausanne  and  Sion  to  Duke  Berthold  of 
Zahringen^^.  The  latter  kept  the  advocacy  of  Lausanne,  but  soon  sold 
that  of  Geneva  to  the  Count  of  the  Genevois'^:  and  shortly  after  we  find 

^  Gremaud,  M.D.R.  xviii.  355,  *'  comes  et  abbas  ecclesiae  beati  Mauricii." 

^  Car.  Reg.  CCLXVI.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  31).  An  Abbot  (since  Burchard 
in  1069  none  are  recorded)  was  restored  to  the  monastery,  Car.  Reg.  CCLXVII. 
(Guichenon,   Preuves,  p.  32). 

3  Car.  Reg.  CCLXxxviii.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  60). 

■*  Car.  Reg.  CCLXXix.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doe.  p.  48). 

'  Car.  Reg.  CCLXxxviii.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  60),  Amadeus  expressly 
retains  the  comitatus  and  its  dues. 

*  Car.  Reg.  cccil.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  62)  in  1150  (cf.  Car.  Reg. 
cccvi.). 

^  Car.  Reg.  ccciil.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  64)  in  1150,  Car.  Reg.  cccxxi. 
(Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  72),  and  cccxcvi.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  no).  The 
Count  has  the  regalia  and  the  comitatus  (cccxxi.).  The  Abbot's  rights,  however, 
show  it  to  have  been  a  domain  of  St  Maurice. 

®  Car.  Reg.  ccciii.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  64)  and  ccci.xxiv.  {Misc. 
Valdostana,  B.S.S.S.   XVII.   p.   104). 

*  Cibrario,  Mem.  Accad.  Scienze,  Torino,  xxxvi.  (1833)  p.  99. 

1"  Car.  Reg.  DXXVi.  (Gremaud,  M.D.R.  xxix.  296)  and  dxxviii.  (id.  294). 

"  See  below,  p.  307,  and  for  the  de  Conthey,  Car.  Reg.  CCCLVII.  (Cibrario  e 
Promis,  Doc.  p.  79). 

'■■'Otto  S.  Bias.  Chron.  (AI.G.H.  Script.  XX.  314),  "  trium  episcopatuum 
advocatia  cum  investitura  regalium,  scilicet  Lausannensis,  Genovensis,  Sedunensis." 
See  below,  p.  324. 

**  See  Gingins-la-Sarra,  Le  Rectorat  de  Bourgogne  {M.D.R.  i.  73),  and  cf.  the 
same  for  his  view  on  the  regalia  of  Sion. 


94       The  possessions  of  Humbert  I   Whitehands 

Humbert  III  in  possession  of  these  rights  over  Sion.  A  treaty  of  1 179 
between  Count  and  Bishop  in  its  present  state  (for  the  Count's  rights 
are  partly  erased)  makes  no  mention  of  themS  but  in  1189  the  Emperor 
Henry  VI  in  refusing  to  restore  them  states  they  had  existed  for  some 
time^ 

(c)  Now  did  Humbert  only  derive  his  claims  from  some  transaction 
with  Duke  Berthold^  or  were  they  of  earlier  date?  The  fact  that 
Henry  VI  refers  to  the  comites  of  Savoy  in  the  plural,  taken  in  connec- 
tion with  his  anxiety  to  minimize  the  duration  of  their  rights,  makes  me 
think  the  latter  must  go  back  to  Amadeus  III  at  least.  Once,  however, 
we  take  them  as  far  back  as  Amadeus  III,  we  seem  to  attribute  their 
origin  more  naturally  to  the  days  of  Whitehands,  when  the  magnates 
appointed  as  bishops  whom  they  would ^  Only  the  loyalty  of  Bishop 
Ermenfrid  to  the  Emperor  Henry  IV  tempts  one  to  opine  he  must  have 
owed  his  position  to  the  Emperor.  So  if  one  may  conclude  anything  of 
a  matter  so  uncertain,  a  fluctuating  claim  of  the  Humbertines  seems  the 
most  likely  alternative,  which  started  from  the  days  of  Whitehands  and 
his  son  Aymon,  and  was  made  definite  by  a  purchase  of  Berthold's 
rights  by  Humbert  III. 

To  this  vague  claim  we  must  add  the  more  real  dominion  (perhaps 
a  countship  of  Chablais)  which  went  along  with  the  immune  abbey  of 
St  Maurice,  gained  c  1069  by  the  Humbertines',  after  a  practical  pos- 
session dating  from  Conrad's  victory  in  1034®,  and  with  the  Anselmid 
inheritance',  not  to  mention  those  extensions  of  territory  which  were 
always  possible  in  an  age  of  continual  and  petty  wars. 

(10)     Savoy  proper. 

This  small  district  stretched  from  Aix-les-bains  to  Les  Marches  and 
Montemelian  and  up  the  Isere  on  both  banks  to  Gresy  and  Conflans 
(Albertville)".     It  was  thus  composed  of  a  section  of  the  Isere  valley 

1  Car.  Reg.  CCCLVii.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  79). 

'  Car.  Reg.  CCCLXXi.  {Gallia  Christiana,  xii.  433).  It  is  a  diploma  to  the  see  of 
Sion.  Henry  VI  says:  "  Sedun.  episcopatum  ad  manum  imperii  retinuimus  speci- 
aliter.cujus  ecclesiae  episcopi  ante  tempora  ilia  (c.  1187)  de  manu  comitum  Sabaudiae 
per  aliquod  tenipus  recipiebant  regalia." 

^  See  above.     This  is  Gingins'  view. 

*  See  above,  p.  8.  Wurstemberger,  i.  43,  thinks  the  Count's  rights  grew  out  of 
frequent  commissions  from  the  Emperors  to  invest  the  Bishops. 

^  That  is,  after  the  death  of  Abbot  Burchard,  see  above. 
^  See  above.     Aymon  and  Burchard  III  were  Abbots. 
^  See  above,  pp.  65,  92. 

*  Cf.  Carutti,  Umberto  Biancamano,  p.  81,  Menabrea,  Origines,  pp.  66-7,  228-9, 
384,  Wurstemberger,  i.  21-2.  For  evidence,  c.  1000,  cf.  Car.  Reg.  xxxvii.  and  XLi. 
(Chevalier,  Cartulaire  de  St  Andri-le-bas,  p.  253),  and  Car.  Reg.  evil.  (Cipolla, 
Mo7i.  Novalic.  I.   161). 


Savoy  proper  95 

and  the  lowlands  to  the  south  of  the  Lac  du  Bourget.  I  have  not 
found  whether  in  Whitehands'  time  it  included  the  southern  Bauges 
round  Chatelard,  but  presumably  it  did.  The  district  between  Aix, 
Les  Marches  and  Gresy-sur-Isere  (omitting  Les  Bauges  and  part  of 
the  southern  bank  of  the  Isere)  formed  the  fourteenth  century  deanery 
of  Savoy  in  the  diocese  of  Grenoble '. 

The  county  in  the  later  middle  ages,  indeed,  belonged  to  quite 
a  number  of  dioceses.  The  Bauges  appertained  to  Geneva,  Conflans 
to  Tarentaise,  Coise  to  Maurienne.  The  diocesan  boundaries  may  have 
been  somewhat  different  in  the  eleventh  century.  We  have  seen  that 
there  are  grounds  for  suspecting  that  the  diocese  of  Belley  reached  to 
the  river  Leisse  near  La  Motte-Servolex  at  one  time.  But  the  fact  that 
Rudolf  III  describes  certain  localities  which  fell  in  the  later  deanery  as 
in  Graisivaudan  as  well  as  in  Savoy,  while  in  another  document,  dealing 
with  places  mostly  outside  the  deanery's  limits,  he  only  mentions  Savoy, 
goes  to  show  that  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  divisions  in  his  day  were 
already  different ^  It  seems  an  obvious  deduction  from  this  composite 
character  of  the  pagus  that  it  was  one  of  recent  formation,  and  hardly  to 
be  linked  with  the  provincia  of  Savoy  under  the  Merovingians.  In  806 
the  pagus  Saboiae  appears  to  include  the  county  of  Belley  as  well,  and 
so  supplies  a  further  hint  of  territorial  changes'*. 

{a)  In  1020-30  we  find  Aymon  of  Pierreforte  possessing  Monter- 
minod  in  Savoy  and  Whitehands  and  his  sons  as  his  witnesses  \  About 
the  same  time  Whitehands  and  his  sons  have  possessions  near  Le  Bourget 
and  Maltacena  and  on  the  Mont-du-Chat '.  In  October  1030,  we  find 
Whitehands  and  his  son  Count  Amadeus  I  similarly  propertied  at 
Maltacena*.  Count  Humbert  witnesses  the  foundation  of  Lemenc  by 
Rudolf  III^     In   1036   we  have   the   record   of  Whitehands'   lands, 

1  Cf.  op.  cit.  in  the  preceding  note,  and  Chevalier,  Visiles  pastorales... des  iveques 
de  Grenoble  {i<f — /J*  sihles)  in  Documefils  historiques  inMils  sur  le  DanphinL  From 
the  latter  I  gather  that  the  Deanery  stretched  from  Aix-les-bains  to  Les  Marches  and 
St  Pierre  de  Genevre  by  Echelles,  and  up  the  Isere  to  Gresy-sur-Isere,  but  not  to 
Conflans.  St  Pierre  d'Albigny  is  the  easternmost  of  the  eight  archpriestdoms  given 
by  Besson,  p.  325.  To  the  south  of  the  Isere  the  diocese  of  Grenoble  just  included 
La  Rochette  and  Les  MoUettes,  that  of  Maurienne  lying  to  the  west  of  these  places. 

'^  See  above,  p.  15,  nn.  2  and  3. 

^  M.G.H.  Capit.  i.  127.  Charlemagne  gives  the/a^/'  of  Lewis  the  Pious'  northern 
frontier  as  follows,  "  Lugdunensem,  Saboiam,  Moriennam,  Tarentasiam,  etc."  It  is 
clear  that  unless  Saboia  includes  Belley,  there  is  a  gap  in  the  frontier  between 
Morestel  and  Lhuis  and  Chambery.  Belley,  however,  appears  as  a  separate  civil 
province  in  858  (Ann.  Berliniani,  M.G.H.  Script.  I.  452). 

*  Car.  Reg.  Lxxili.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  5),  and  above,  pp.  48  and  59. 

'  Car.  AV^.  LX.,  Lxi.,  Guichenon,  Preuves,  pp.  5  and  6,  above,  pp.  48-9  and 
59-60. 

®  See  above,  pp.  48,  60.  ^  See  above,  p.  50. 


96       The  possessions  of  Humbert  I   Whitehands 

adjoining  those  of  the  King  at  Coise ;  and  it  is  natural  to  infer  from 
the  phraseology  that  he  was  Count  of  Savoy'.  Finally  Amadeus  I 
distinctly  says  that  Maltacena  lies  in  the  diocese  of  Grenoble  and  in 
comitatu  nostra.     Thus  he  is  certainly  Count  of  Savoy ^ 

(b)  Later  evidence  need  hardly  be  brought  forward.  Le  Bourget 
Priory  remained  a  favourite  monastery  of  the  Savoyard  House,  whose 
oldest  foundation  it  was^  In  1125  we  have  Amadeus  III  already 
styling  himself  Count  of  Savoy*  and  under  Count  Thomas  (1189-1233) 
it  becomes  the  usual  title  ^ 

{c)  The  origin  of  Whitehands'  possession  of  this  pagus  is  again  ob- 
scure, but  it  seems  to  me  difificult  to  dissociate  the  acquisition  of  the 
tiny  county,  half  royal  demesne,  from  that  of  the  more  important 
Belley.  One  would  be  inclined  to  suppose  the  two  counties  Hnked 
together.  Some  of  Queen  Ermengarde's  lands  ^  but  not  al^,  probably 
came  to  the  Savoyards  ^ 

(11)     Maurienne. 

The  county  of  Maurienne  stretched  from  the  neighbourhood  of 
Aiguebelle  to  the  Alps  along  the  valley  of  the  Arc.  The  diocese  of  the 
same  name,  in  the  fourteenth  century  at  least,  stretched  further  north 
so  as  to  include  Coise  and  the  south  bank  of  the  Isere  as  far  as  La 
Rochette^ 

This  narrow  semi-circular  valley  lies  pent  between  the  Graian  and 
Dauphinese  Alps  which  it  separates.  With  hardly  a  tributary  vale 
leading  into  its  barren  gorge,  and  only  one  space,  which  could  be  called 
a  plain,   round  its  cathedral  city  St  Jean  de  Maurienne,  the  whole 


^  See  above,  pp.  52  and  61. 
^  See  above,  pp.  55-6  and  64. 

^  See  Car.  Reg.  ccxxxii.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  27),  CCLXXX.  (Guichenon, 
Preuves,  p.  38). 

*  See  below,  p.  308. 

^  See  below,  pp.  421-2. 

*  At  Conflans  the  Counts  of  Savoy  had  ancient  rights,  see  Menabrea,  op.  cit. 
p.  398.  It  is  odd  that  there  seems,  with  this  possible  exception,  no  proved  instance 
of  direct  proprietorship  acquired  by  the  Humbertines  from  Queen  Ermengarde.  Of 
course  they  might  have  got  the  suzerainty  only.     See  next  note. 

^  Thus  Chambery  belonged  to  the  vicecomital  house  of  that  name  till  1232.  See 
below,  p.  451 ;  Aix  and  Conflans  to  homonymous  families,  Menabrea,  op.  cit.  pp.  382 
and  398.  They  were  all  vassals  of  Savoy.  Annecy  in  the  Genevois  went  to  the 
Counts  of  that  pagus.     See  above,  p.  88. 

^  Cf.  above,  p.  80,  but  perhaps  the  Counts  forced  homage  from  Ermengarde's 
ex-vassals  after  all. 

®  See  above,  p.  95,  n.  i. 


Maurienne  97 

importance  of  the  long  glen  lay  in  its  being  on  the  great  trade-route 
by  land  between  Italy  and  the  west.  It  formed  the  western  approach 
to  the  Mont  Cenis,  and  still  the  railroad  goes  that  way  to  the  tunnel  of 
Frejus. 

Its  ecclesiastical  history  bore  traces  of  this  special  position.  When 
the  Merovingians  c.  575  conquered  the  Val  di  Susa  on  the  eastern  side 
of  the  Mont  Cenis  ^,  they  added  their  acquisition  to  the  diocese  of 
Maurienne.  Later  the  great  abbey  of  Novalesa  was  founded  on  the 
road  to  the  east  of  the  famous  pass.  But  a  revolution  was  worked  by 
the  Saracen  devastation.  The  reconquest  of  the  Val  di  Susa  for 
Christendom  was  effected  by  the  Marquess  of  Turin,  and  hencefor- 
ward, except  for  a  brief  interval,  it  was  lost  to  the  Bishop  of  Mauri- 
enne-. To  judge  from  the  state  of  the  Val  di  Susa  the  ruin  suffered 
by  Maurienne  from  the  Saracens  must  have  been  profound. 

(a)  The  earliest  evidence  of  the  Humbertines  in  Maurienne  dates 
from  1043  or  1047 '.  Two  interesting  charters  show  us  Whitehands  as 
Count,  and  of  some  standing,  for  he  licenses  the  transfer  to  the  Chapter 
of  Maurienne  by  Bishop  Theobald  of  lands  which  Whitehands  had 
himself  enfeoffed  to  the  Bishop^.  \Vhether  this  suzerainty  which  the 
Count  thus  exercised  over  some  of  the  Bishop's  domains  extended  to 
all  of  them,  we  are  not  informed',  but  we  may  note  that  later  not  even 

'  Hodgkin,  Italy  and  her  Invaders,  v.  223-4. 

^  See  below,  n.  5,  pp.  147,  and  290-1.    The  evidence  is  cited  on  p.  290,  nn.  3  and  4. 

'^  See  above,  pp.  54  and  63. 

^  See  above,  p.  54.  I  may  notice  that  Humbert  claims  to  have  given  these  him- 
self. They  are  not  mere  parts  of  the  episcopium  held  from  him  in  general.  Thus 
M.  de  Mantcyer  goes  somewhat  beyond  the  evidence  when  he  says  (Origines,  p.  402) 
that  whereas  Theobald  did  not  need  Humbert's  assent  in  a  gift  of  1039  ('4<^ad.  Imp. 
de  Savoie,  Docs.  ii.  Chartes  de  Maurienne,  p.  13),  and  did  in  1043(7),  Humbert 
must  have  become  suzerain  of  the  episcopuim  in  the  interval.  The  lands  dealt  with 
were  different. 

'  See  preceding  note,  and  below,  p.  243,  n.  3.  Here  we  are  met  by  M.  de 
Manteyer's  theory  {Origines,  pp.  400-6),  which  is  largely  based  on  the  views  put 
forward  by  Baron  Carutti  {Umberto  Biancamano,  pp.  37,  105,  108)  and  Padre  Savio 
(Anticki  Vescovi,  pp.  230-1,  233,  and  343).  Briefly  it  is  that  Emperor  Conrad  in 
1039  united  by  imperial  precept  the  diocese  of  Maurienne  to  that  of  Turin  (Car. 
Heg.  cxiv.  M.G.H.  Dipl.  iv.  411);  that  the  phrase  in  Bishop  Theobald's  charter 
of  1039  (see  preceding  note),  "eo  quod  locus  unde  videor  esse  episcopus 
destructus  mihi  videtur,"  refers  to  his  own  deposition  ;  that  on  Conrad's  death 
Theobald  made  his  peace,  surrendered  the  Val  di  Susa  to  the  Bishopric  of  Turin, 
and  reobtained  his  diminished  diocese  as  Count  Humbert's  vassal.  But,  on  the 
other  side,  the  reasons  seem  conclusive,  (i)  Conrad's  diploma  is  proved  a  double 
forgery  of  the  eleventh  and  thirteenth  centuries  by  Bresslau  {Konrad  II,  11.  475-6 
and  M.G.H.  Dipl.  iv.  411)  (cf.  Gabotto  in  Carte,  arcivescov.  Torino,  B.S.S.S. 
XXXVI.  p.  3);  (ii)  the  phrase  destructus  to  all  appearance  refers  to  some  disaster 
which  had  befallen  the  canons  to  whom  the  Bishop's  gift  is  made,  and  which  he 

P.  O.  7 


98       The  possessions  of  Humbert   I   Whitehands 

Frederick  Barbarossa  ventured  to  grant  or  confirm  immunity  to  the 
Bishop.  Probably  therefore  they  were  vassals  of  the  Counts  from 
Whitehands'  time.  The  Counts  took  the  spolia  sede  vacante  as  early 
as  Amadeus  III,  who  renounced  them,  as  also  did  Humbert  IIP. 
We  further  know  that  Marquess  Oddo  I,  Whitehands'  son,  succeeded 
in  Maurienne  and  that  in  his  time  money  was  struck  at  Aiguebelle,  his 
principal  possession  in  the  valley,  to  the  prejudice  of  the  rights  of 
Leger,  Archbishop  of  Vienne.  The  Archbishop  protested  and  the 
Marquess  gave  way  before  105  4-. 

{b)  Of  the  later  evidence  I  need  only  mention  the  assumption  of 
the  style  comes  Maurianensis  or  Mauriennae  by  Count  Amadeus  IIP 
(1103-49),  which  continued  to  be  the  most  usual  title  of  his  successors 
for  their  Burgunfiian  possessions  till  Thomas  I  (1189-1233)^;  and  the 
spolia  of  the  bishopric ^  The  history  of  the  mint  will  be  narrated 
below*.  The  statements  of  the  legendary  Chroniqiies",  which  make 
the  castle  of  Charbonniere  the  first  possession  of  the  Savoyards  in 
Burgundy,  are  as  usual  worthless.  Charbonniere  was  acquired  in  the 
twelfth  century**.  Aiguebelle  and  some  villages  near  La  Chambre  are 
the  earliest  recorded  possessions'*.  Later  St  Julien  and  Modane  are  in 
the  comital  demesne",  it  may  be  of  old  date. 

{c)  As  to  the  origin  of  these  domains,  it  will  be  noticed  that 
nothing  in  the  contemporary  evidence  supports  the  tradition  of  the 
Chroniques  that  Maurienne  was  the  cradle  of  the  Counts  of  Savoy.  In 
1043  (or  1047)  Count  Humbert  Whitehands  had  been  in  possession 
long  enough  to  confirm  the  transfer  of  lands  which  he  had  himself 
given  to  Bishop  Theobald,  while  the  Bishop  appears  for  the  first  time 

attempts  to  repair ;  (iii)  with  regard  to  the  Val  di  Susa,  see  below,  p.  290.  Its 
possession  by  the  Bishop  of  Maurienne  dated  from  the  Burgundian  conquest  c.  574 
(Savio,  op.  cit.  227-8) ;  as  it  went  to  Italy  again  under  Charlemagne,  a  dispute 
between  the  Bishops  of  Turin  and  Maurienne  was  likely.  In  904  it  was  still 
under  Maurienne  (Billiet,  M^m.  Acad.  Savoie,  S.  11.  T.  iv.  pp.  328-9).  Cf.  also 
above,  p.   34,  n.   2,  and  Poupardin,   Botirgogne,   p.   160. 

^  Car.  Reg.  dcclxxxvi.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  173).  Guy,  Archbishop 
of  Vienne  {after  Callixtus  II),  refers  to  Amadeus  Ill's  protection  of  the  see  (Car. 
Reg.   CCLV.,  Chevalier,    Cartulaire  de  St  Andr^-le-Bas,  p.   281). 

^  Car.  Reg.  CLXXiii.  (Migne,  CXLiii.  1407-8),  Savio,  I primi  conti  di  Savoia, 
p.  463,  and  Menabrea,  Origities  feodales,  pp.    199-200.     Cf.  below,  p.   124. 

^  See  below,  p.  308. 

*  See  above,  p.  96,  and  below,  pp.  421-2. 

'  See  above. 

^  See  below,  pp.  124  and  224-5. 

7  M.H.P.  Script.  II.  64. 

^  Menabrea,  Origines  feodales,  pp.  399-400,  and  cf.  below,  p.  285,  n.  7. 

9  Menabrea,  op.  cit.  p.  399,  and  above,  pp.  54  and  63,  with  refs. 

•"'  Menabrea,  op.  cit.  p.  239. 


Tarentaise  99 

in  the  synod  of  Romans  1037^  This  is  all  we  know.  The  inference 
which  seems  to  me  most  likely  is  that  the  Emperor  Conrad  had  con- 
ferred the  county  and  the  control  of  the  western  route  to  the  Mont 
Cenis  on  his  trusted  ally,  who  already  dominated  the  two  St  Ber- 
nards. Thus  he  would  concentrate  the  control  of  the  passes  in  faithful 
hands'^. 

(12)      Tarentaise. 

This  valley  is  the  watershed  of  the  Upper  Isere  leading  to  the  Little 
St  Bernard.  It  is  a  narrow  mountain-valley,  with  great  masses  of  the 
Alps  on  each  side  :  nor  did  it  ever  become  a  great  European  thorough- 
fare like  Maurienne.  All  the  district,  save  the  tiny  offshoot  of  Bellecombe, 
a  dependency  of  Geneva,  belonged  to  the  archdiocese  of  Tarentaise. 
The  two  suffragans  of  the  Archbishop-Count  were  the  Bishops  of  Aosta 
and  Sion ;  as  we  have  seen,  his  diocese  extended  over  part  of  the 
county  of  Savoy^  Like  the  neighbouring  lands  it  had  suffered  terribly 
from  the  Saracens,  and  was  probably  anarchic  under  the  Archbishop's 
weak   control. 

(ct)  In  1 05 1  Marquess  Oddo  gives  Villard-Beranger  near  Moutiers 
to  the  Canons  of  Tarentaise,  for  the  repose  of  his  father's  soul'*.  We 
have  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  county  remained  in  the  possession 
of  the  Arch  bishop  ^ 

(b)  As  will  be  shown  later  on®,  Amadeus  III  (1103-48)  took  the 
spolia  of  the  archbishops  and  ruled  Tarentaise'.  The  tradition  of  the 
Chroniques  places  the  acquisition  of  the  valley  under  Humbert  II 
(c.  1091— 1103)*  and  Herr  Hellmann  has  pointed  out^  that  the  Sires  de 
Briangon  became  viscounts  of  Tarentaise  about  1 080-90 ^'\  which  very 
well  agrees  with  the  transfer  of  the  county  to  a  lay-count. 

{c)  How  the  Humbertines  obtained  Villard-Beranger  and  other 
lands  in  Tarentaise  does  not  appear.  It  was  of  course  a  district  they 
would  wish  to  acquire. 

^  Car.  Reg.  cxill.  (Giraud,  Cartulaire  de  Romans,  ed.  I.  Preuves,  i.  68-9). 
^  See  above,  pp.  37,  39-40. 
■*  See  above,  p.  95. 

*  See  above,  pp.  55  and  64. 

*  See  above,  p.  8. 

*  See  below,  pp.  269  and  301-2. 

'  Car.  Reg.  CCLXXXiv.  {Gallia  Christiana,  xii.  382). 

*  Car.  Reg.  ccxxxvni.,  ccxxxix.,  M.H.P.  Script.  11.  97-8,  Misc.  stor.  Hal.  xxu. 
310.     See  below,  pp.  269-70. 

"  Die  Graf  en  v.  Savoy  en,  p.  5. 

'"  Aymon  (dead  by  1096),  the  first  viscount,  was  grandson  of  Richard  Curtus, 
contemporary  of  Archbishop  Amizo    (living  rooo).      M.H.P.  Chart.  11.   178. 

7—2 


lOO     The  possessions  of  Humbert   I   Whitehands 

When  we  sum  up  the  many  scraps  of  evidence,  I  think  the  most 
natural  conclusion  is  that  the  Humbertines  about  looo  a.d.  were  great 
seigneurs  in  the  county  of  Sermorens  and  also  Counts  of  Belley,  to  all 
appearance  by  inheritance  from  an  antecessor  of  the  generation  before  ^ 
We  have  seen  reason  to  believe  that  their  domains,  part  of  which  at 
least  were  immune-,  extended  through  the  Viennois  proper  into  the 
Lyonnais  by  St  Symphorien  d'Ozon  ;  and  it  seems  likely  that  the  small 
and  poor  county  of  Savoy  was  theirs  also,  for  by  itself  it  was  not  large 
enough  for  a  Count  in  Rudolf  Ill's  days.  Then  c.  1020  we  find 
Whitehands  extending  his  domains  in  the  Genevois  and  perhaps  in 
Equestricus.  This  seems  partly  due  to  his  relationship  with  the  Ansel- 
mids,  whose  power  lay  round  the  Lake  of  Geneva,  and  partly  to  the 
favour  of  the  royal  house.  Then  comes  the  first  shifting  of  the  centre 
of  gravity  of  the  Humbertine  domains  by  the  acquisition,  again  through 
Anselmid  and  royal  connections,  of  the  county  of  Aosta,  and  of  the 
two  passes  of  St  Bernard.  Humbert  then  made  his  fateful  decision  to 
aid  the  German  conquest.  In  rapid  succession  follow  the  at  least  tem- 
porary possession  of  the  Bishopric  of  Sion  and  the  acquisition  of  the 
great  abbey  of  St  Maurice,  with  the  county  of  Old-Chablais  and  the 
immunity  of  New-Chablais,  and  that  of  the  county  of  Maurienne  with 
the  control  of  the  Mont  Cenis  Pass,  the  only  real  rival  to  the  Great 
St  Bernard  in  the  Western  Alps.  In  this  way  the  position  of  the 
Savoyards  on  the  Alpine  chain,  which  has  dominated  their  history  and 
that  of  modern  Italy,  was  attained.  Thus  the  Humbertines,  like  the 
Dauphins,  move  into  the  mountains  from  the  fertile  plain,  a  process 
rendered  easier  by  the  wretched  anarchy  into  which  the  Alpine  provinces 
were  plunged  by  the  Saracen  devastation.  Royal  favour  was  a  potent 
auxiliary.  First  Rudolf  III,  then  Conrad  II,  and  finally,  as  we  shall 
see,  Henry  III,  fostered  the  Humbertines'  greatness.  We  need  not 
look  for  any  policy  in  Rudolf  save  the  desire  to  have  powerful  friends  to 
lean  on.  That  of  Conrad  II  and  of  Henry  III  seems  to  have  been  the 
securing  of  the  West  Alpine  passes  by  granting  them  to  a  strong  and 
loyal  house. 


Section  V.    The  ancestry  of  Humbert  I  Whitehands. 

The  ancestry  of  so  renowned  a  house  as  was  that  of  Savoy  has 
naturally  been  a  subject  of  much  research.  Beyond  the  figure  of 
Humbert  Whitehands,  however,  lies  a  tract  on  which  no  investigation 
has  succeeded  in  casting  any  certain  light.     It  has  not  been  only  that 

^  See  above,  p.  81.  ^  See  above,  p.  81,  n.  4. 


Rival  theories  of  Whitehands'  ancestry  loi 

dynastic,  racial,  and  political  prejudices  have  distorted  the  judgement  of 
historians.  The  ascertained  facts  are  so  meagre,  so  scattered  and  so 
difficult  to  interpret,  that  it  is  little  wonder  if  the  most  various  opinions 
have  been  formed  from  them.  For  an  account,  and  I  may  add,  a  refu- 
tation of  the  earlier  theories  and  legends  I  may  refer  the  reader  to  the 
lucid  pages  of  Baron  Carutti,  in  the  work  to  which  I  am  so  much  in- 
debted'. Here  I  propose  to  examine  only  those  which  have  survived 
his  criticisms  or  have  appeared  since  his  book. 

These  opinions  may  be  classified  under  four  heads,  (i)  Signor 
Labruzzi  in  his  Monarchia  di  Savoia  has  maintained  that  Humbert 
Whitehands  was  a  grandson  of  that  King  Berengar  H  of  Italy,  who  was 
overthrown  by  Otto  the  Great  in  962-4.  The  exiled  royal  house  will 
thus  have  reacquired  its  lost  kingdom  after  nine  centuries.  This  may 
best  be  called  the  Anscarid  descent,  from  the  name  usually  applied  to 
the  family  to  which  Berengar  H  belonged,  that  of  the  Marquesses  of 
Ivrea.  (ii)  Secondly,  there  is  a  group  of  diverse,  yet  allied  opinions 
advocated  by  Baron  Gingins^  Count  Baudi  di  Vesme^  and  Count  di 
Gerbaix-Sonnaz^  Gingins  and  Count  di  Vesme  both,  although  by 
different  links,  make  Whitehands  descend  from  Boso,  first  King  of 
Provence,  and  his  son,  the  Emperor  Lewis  the  Blind.  This  descent,  the 
Bosonid,  would  make  the  Humbertines  heirs  of  the  Italian  and  eldest 
branch  of  the  Carolingian  house,  through  Boso's  wife  Ermengarde,  the 
daughter  of  the  Emperor  Lewis  II.  In  this  case,  too,  the  House  of 
Savoy  has  at  length  recovered  its  inheritance.  Unlike  the  splendour  of 
the  two  preceding.  Count  Cierbaix'  scheme  only  makes  the  Humbertines 

1  Umberto  I  Biancatnaiio.  Thus  I  do  not  discuss  either  the  mythical  Berold  of 
the  Chrotit'/ttes,  or  the  descents  from  Count  Manasses  or  Count  Otto-WiUiam  of 
Burgimdy,  both  at  one  time  or  another  sustained  by  Cibrario.  The  stoiy  of  the 
Chroniques  is  briefly  as  follows.  Berold  (also  Beroald),  a  member  of  the  imperial 
Saxon  House,  leaves  Germany  for  Burgundy,  and  becomes  lieutenant  of  Kings 
Boso  and  Rudolf.  He  wars  in  the  Alpine  region  against  their  enemies ;  settles  in 
Maurienne  at  Charbonniere,  and  dies,  leaving  a  son,  Albert,  called  Humbert,  White- 
hands.  No  trace  of  the  story  or  of  Berold  appears  in  contemporary  documents, 
although  an  absurd  forgery  exists  concerning  him  (Car.  Sup.  HI.  q-v.).  The  tale 
was  probably  invented  on  the  framework  of  an  obscure  notice  in  Chron.  Allacumbae 
{M.H.P.  Script.  II.  671):  "  Girardus  non  fuit  comes,  sed  officialis  regum ;  primo 
quidem  Bosonis,  deinde  Rodulfi,  quibus  defunctis,  cessavit  regnum  Arelatense  el 
Juranense  ;  tunc  surrexerunt  comitatus  duo,  Maurianensis  et  Albonensis.  In  Mauriania 
fuit  comes  primus  llumbertus  Blancis  Manibus."  (3n  this  notice  Prof.  Gabotto  founded 
his  hypothesis  ( Una  nuova  ipotesi  sulle  origini  di  Casa  Savoia,  Giornale  Araldico- 
genealogico-diplomatico,  Anno  xill.),  by  which  the  first  ancestor  of  the  Humbertines 
and  great-grandfather  of  Whitehands  would  be  a  Gerard  de  Beaujeu,  younger  son  of 
William  H,  Count  of  Lyons  and  Forez.  But  I  believe  Prof.  Gabotto  has  now 
abandoned  this  guess. 

-  See  below,  p.  104,  n.  3.  *  See  below,  p.  107,  n.  7. 

''  See  below,  p.  107,  n.  8. 


I02        The  ancestry  of  Humbert   I   Whitehands 

descend  from  local  Burgundian  nobles ;  but  his  genealogy  has  much  in 
common  with  Count  di  Vesme's  as  will  be  seen,  (iii)  In  his  Uviberto  I 
Biancamano  Baron  Carutti  proposed  another  scheme  of  descent  from 
local  Burgundian  nobles,  (iv)  Lastly,  M.  de  Manteyer  in  his  three 
studies  on  the  House  of  Savoy'  has  advocated  a  north  French  origin 
for  the  Humbertines,  deriving  them  from  the  tenth  century  Counts  of 
Troyes. 

In  discussing  these  rival  theories,  my  plan  is,  to  take  each  separatel) 
in  the  order  given ;  expound  it,  and  give  its  grounds ;  state  the  difficul- 
ties ;  and  finally  give  an  opinion  on  its  validity  and  on  the  degree  of 
acceptance  to  which  it  can  lay  claim.  I  should  state  that  I  omit  those 
arguments,  based  on  supposed  facts,  which  have  been  later  shown  not 
to  exist  or  the  invalidity  of  which  I  have  had  occasion  to  show  in  the 
foregoing  pages.  To  a  certain  extent  this  procedure  does  injustice  to 
the  authors  of  the  respective  theories,  as  it  conceals  some  of  the  grounds 
on  which  they  based  their  arguments ;  but  it  represents  the  actual 
present  claims  of  those  theories  on  our  belief  much  more  clearly  than 
would  a  full  exposition  of  the  arguments  which  supported  them  at  their 
first  appearance. 

(A)  According  to  Signor  Labruzzi,  Count  Humbert  Whitehands  of 
Aosta  was  the  son  of  Adalbert,  equally  Count  of  Aosta,  and  younger 
son  (unmentioned  in  the  chronicles)  of  Berengar  II,  the  king  of  Italy  of 
the  Anscarid  House  overthrown  by  Otto  the  Great  in  961-4.  His 
argument  may  be  thus  given  from  his  abstract  of  it". 

(i)  After  966  the  county  of  Aosta  again  became  part  of  the  king- 
dom of  Burgundy.  After  the  same  date  there  was  in  Burgundy  a  Count 
Adalbert. 

(ii)  This  Count  Adalbert  was  also  called  Marquess,  a  non-Burgun- 
dian  title ;  hence  he  was  a  foreigner. 

(iii)  In  the  last  years  of  Berengar  II  of  Italy,  he  must  have  ap- 
pointed his  son  the  younger  Adalbert  (not  the  elder  King  Adalbert)  as 
Count  of  Aosta  : 

(iv)  for  in  a  charter  of  c.  968^  Bishop  Giso  of  Aosta  makes  bitter 
complaints  of  and  claims  a  legal  victory  over  Count  Adalbert  of  Aosta, 
son  of  King  Berengar.  This  Count  Adalbert,  being  of  the  Anscarid 
House  of  Ivrea,  would  also  bear  the  title  of  Marquess.  So  did  Count 
Adalbert  in  Burgundy.  The  charter  of  Bishop  Giso,  which  from  its 
abusive  style  must  have  been  written  after  the  fall  of  Berengar  II  and 
the  retrocession  of  Aosta  to  Burgundy,  shows  that  the  Anscarid  Adal- 
bert continued  to  be  Count  of  Aosta. 

^  See  Abbreviated  Titles.  ^  La  Monarchia  di  Savoia,  pp.  210-12. 

^  Besson,  p.  473,  Savio,  Gli  antichi  vescovi,  pp.  84-6,  Patrucco,  Misc.  Valdosiana, 
B.S.S.S.  XVII.  pp.  lix.-lxiii.     See  above,  p.  90,  n.  1. 


Labruzzi's  scheme  103 

(v)  Whitehands'  first  proved  county  in  Burgundy  is  Aosta ;  there- 
fore when  he  first  appears  entitled  count  in  1003,  it  must  be  Aosta  of 
which  he  is  Count. 

(vi)  Marquess-Count  Adalbert  in  Burgundy,  who  should  be  Count 
of  Aosta,  was  still  living  in  1002.  Therefore  Whitehands  succeeded 
Adalbert.  Counties  were  then  hereditary;  therefore  Whitehands  was 
Adalbert's  son. 

(vii)  Signor  Labruzzi  also  gives  other  reasons,  but  they  are  quite 
subordinate  in  value,  save  one^:  that  the  Counts  in  the  Canavese, 
descendants  of  King  Ardoin  of  Italy,  who  was  most  probably  a  member 
of  the  House  of  Ivrea,  used  the  Humbertine  names  of  Amadeus,  Uberto 
and  Oddo,  to  which  we  may  add  that  the  ancestor  of  the  whole 
Anscarid  House  was  named  Amadeus. 

With  regard  to  these  arguments    it  is  to  be  remarked  : 

(i)  Though  a  younger  son  of  Berengar  H,  called,  equally  with  his 
elder  brother,  Adalbert,  is  quite  possible,  there  is  no  evidence  of  his 
existence,  save  the  charter  of  Bishop  Giso^ 

(ii)  The  omission  of  the  title  King  for  Count  Adalbert  in  Bishop 
Giso's  charter  is  hardly  sufficient  proof  that  King  Adalbert  is  not  meant ; 
nor  can  we  well  argue  that  because  Aosta  must  have  been  part  of  the 
Mark  of  Ivrea,  and  because  King  Adalbert's  brother  Conrad  was  already 
Marquess  of  Ivrea,  therefore  King  Adalbert  could  not  have  been  his 
brother's  underling.     The  first  two  statements  are  not  substantiated  I 

(iii)  Aosta  continued  to  pay  allegiance  to  Otto  the  Great  in  969  : 
so  we  hardly  have  a  rebel  Count  of  an  out-of-the-way  corner  of  the  realm 
transferring  his  allegiance  to  another  kingdom  ^ 

(iv)  With  the  disappearance  of  the  younger  Adalbert  of  Aosta, 
there  remains  no  need  to  make  the  Marquess-Count  Adalbert  in 
Burgundy  an  Anscarid.  We  can  hardly  say  the  title  Marquess  could 
not    well    occur  in  Burgundy  at  the  date^     And  there  is  no  direct 

^  Labruzzi,  op.  cit.  pp.  221-2. 

^  It  is  true  that  Thietmar,  11.  6  {M.G.H.  Script,  ili.  747),  says  that  Otto  I  captured 
Berengar  "cum...filiis  ac  fihabus"  at  S.  Leone  in  961,  while  the  three  known  sons 
were  not  captured.  But  Arnulf  of  Milan,  i.  7  {M.G.H.  Script,  viii.8),  only  mentions 
"filiabus."  Neither  were  contemporary,  and  the  later  Italian  seems  preferable  here 
to  the  more  distant  German  writer. 

*  There  is  no  proof  that  the  Marquesses  of  Ivrea  ever  had  subordinate  counts  in 
the  counties  of  their  Mark:  see  Pivano,  Stato  e  Chiesa,  p.  131  (following  Bresslau, 
Konrad  II,  1.  439-43) :  so,  supposing  the  charter  genuine,  there  is  no  reason  to  make 
Adalbert  a  subordinate  of  the  Mark  of  Ivrea.  Cf.  for  the  absence  of  Adalbert's  title 
of  king  the  similar  omission  in  Car.  Reg.  x.xxviii.  {M.G.H.  Dipl.  ill.  379,  iv.  423). 

■•  See  above,  p.  89. 

*  Rudolf  I,  founder  of  the  Jurane  kingdom,  calls  himself  principally  Marquess 
before  his  elevation  as  king,  c.  885,  see  Poupardin,  Bourgopie,  p.  363  :  William  of 
Provence  calls  himself  Marquess  in  979,  see  id.  p.  285. 


I04        The  ancestry  of  Humbert  I   Whitehands 

evidence  and  very  little  implication \  that  the  Burgundian  Adalbert  was 
Count  of  Aosta. 

(v)  The  whole  tendency  of  the  preceding  section  has  been  to  show 
that  Aosta  was  a  later  acquisition  of  Count  Humbert  Whitehands,  and 
that  his  county  in  1003  was  most  likely  Belley  with  Savoy. 

Thus  the  whole  structure  of  Sig.  Labruzzi's  theory  falls  to  the 
ground  on  examination,  for  the  Anscarid  Adalbert  the  younger  is  not 
shown  to  exist,  the  Burgundian  Adalbert  is  not  shown  to  be  Count 
of  Aosta,  and  Whitehands  is  not  shown  to  have  inherited  Aosta  from 
him  or  any  one^. 

One  point  remains,  however,  which  makes  one  pause.  It  is  cer- 
tainly singular  that  there  should  be  such  a  resemblance  of  names 
between  the  cadet  branches  of  the  Anscarids  and  the  Humbertines. 

(B)  The  Bosonid  origin  upheld  by  Count  di  Vesme  is  linked  so 
closely  with  the  elder  Bosonid  origin  supported  by  Gingins-La-Sarra, 
and  with  the  allied  Boso-Anselm  theory  of  Count  di  Gerbaix-Sonnaz, 
that  I  treat  all  three  together,  taking  the  view  of  Baron  Gingins  first. 

(a)  Gingins'  view-^  was  that  Whitehands  was  the  son  of  a  Count 
Amadeus^  in  the  Upper  Viennois  (Belley-Sermorens)  and  grandson  of 
Count  Humbert^  who  would  be  identical  with  Upertus,  son  of  Count 
Charles-Constantine  of  Vienne,  himself  the  son  of  the  Emperor  Lewis 
the  Blind".  This  Upertus  appears  about  960  together  with  his  father, 
his  mother  Theoberga  and  his  brother  Richard  as  a  signatory  of  a  deed 
of  sale  on  the  part  of  one  of  their  vassals.  In  a  charter  of  May  958  and 
in  another  of  April  960,  Charles-Constantine  and  Richard  appear  without 
him''.  Thus  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  Upertus  surviving  both  of 
them.  Besides  the  mere  names  from  the  documents  cited  in  notes  4, 
5  and  7,  and  besides  the  fact  that  the  chronology  of  the  scheme  is 
sound,  his  argument  rests  on  two  points  : 

^  Labi-uzzi's  (pp.  194--,)  argument  is  that  he  was  a  neighbouring  Count  to 
St  ^Maurice  Agaune,  and  that  Vaud,  the  Genevois,  and  Vallais,  had  other  Counts. 
But  the  inference  is  hazardous  ;  and  also  Poupardin.  Bourgogne,  p.  275,  considers 
Adalbert  Count  of  Vaud. 

^  The  conferment  of  vacant  counties  on  new  holders  by  the  king  is  not  uncommon 
under  Rudolf  III,  e.g.  the  Viennois,  Sermorens,  Vallais,  Vaud,  Tarentaise,  and 
probably  the  Genevois. 

*  M.D.R.  XX.  211-47,  Mhn.  sur  Vorigine  de  la  7)iaison  de  Savoie. 

*  Car.  Reg.  xili.  (Chevalier,  Cartiil.  de  St  Chaffre,  p.  ro8).  See  above,  pp.  45 
and  57. 

'  Car.  Reg.  xi.  (Bruel,  Chartes...de  Cluny,  II.  480).     See  above,  pp.  45  and  57. 

"  See  for  Chas.-Constantine,  Poupardin,  Provence,  pp.  208-12,  239-42,  and 
Bourgogne,  pp.  47-8,  247-9.     Poupardin  considers  he  was  illegitimate. 

"^  Car.  Reg.  vil.,  Bruel,  Cha7-tes...de  Cluny,  11.  186  (No.  1094),  Chevalier, 
Cartul.  de  St  Atidr^-le-has,  p.  236),  and  Cha>'tes...de  Cluny,  il.  141  (No.  1047), 
and  177  (No.    1084). 


Gingins'  scheme  105 

(i)  a  charter-dating  of  980  cited  by  Du  Bouchet',  "regnante 
Amedeo  filio  Umberti"; 

(ii)  the  identity  of  possession,  Charles-Constantine  being  Count  of 
the  Viennois  and  Sermorens,  where  the  Humbertines  had  large  posses- 
sions, and,  in  particular,  holding  land  at  St  Symphorien  d'Ozon,  St  Genix, 
and  at  Haut-Burcin  near  La  C6te-St-Andre,  at  St  Alban-de-Cirisin-sur- 
Rhone  and  in  the  Isle  de  Ciers,  where  we  find  the  Savoyards  later. 

The  identifications  in  Gingins'  theory  (for  the  earlier  forms  of  which 
I  must  refer  to  Baron  Carutti's  Umberto  Biancamano)  are  peculiarly 
attractive ;  but  on  looking  into  the  evidence  we  encounter  great 
difficulties. 

(i)  The  descent  from  Charles-Constantine  in  the  male  line  presents 
an  inexplicable  situation.  Let  us  grant  that  Upertus  survived  his  father 
and  became  Count,  being  in  that  case  probably  the  Count  Humbertus 
of  Car.  Reg.  xi.  (above,  p.  45).  Then  the  counties  of  the  Viennois  and 
Sermorens  must  have  been  lost  by  him,  and  the  Bosonids  quite  crushed 
or  else  extinct,  for  the  feeble  King  Rudolf  III  to  be  able  to  grant  them 
to  Queen  Ermengarde  in  loii"  and  for  the  latter  to  grant  the  Viennois 
to  the  Archbishop  of  Vienne  in  I023^  Yet  in  these  years  the  Humber- 
tines were  powerful,  and  high  in  the  royal  favour. 

(ii)  The  only  evidence  for  the  affiliations  proposed  is  the  phrase 
*'  regnante  Amedeo  filio  Umberti."  Now  this  charter  has  never  been 
found  since  Du  Bouchet's  time.  But  a  charter  is  known  dated  simply 
*'  regnante  Amedeo  comite  "  and  this  has  been  proved  conclusively  by 
M.  G.  de  Manteyer  to  belong  to  Amadeus  II  son  of  Marquess  Oddo 
c.  1078^  One  cannot  help  thinking  that  this  charter  is  probably  Du 
Bouchet's  and  that  "  filio  Humberti "  is  an  insertion  of  his ;  as  the 
phrase  "  regnante... comite  "  is  peculiarly  suitable  for  the  date  c.  10781 

(iii)  The  evidence  for  the  identity  of  possessions  is  no  less  fatally 
open  to  criticism.  St  Alban-de-Cirisin  (really  villa  de  Cisiriacus  in  the 
Viennois  and  church  of  St  Albini)  ^  was  restored  by  Charles-Constantine 

^  See  Manteyer,  Origines,  pp.  4 17-20,  M.D.R.  XX.  227. 

^  See  above,  p.  14. 

^  See  above,  p.  19. 

•*  Origines,  pp.  417-20.     The  argument  in  brief  is  this: 

(i)  The  charter  assumes  the  union  of  the  church  of  St  Genix  to  St  Andre-le-bas 
of  Vienne,  and  thus  is  later  than  1023  (see  above,  pp.  47  and  58,  Car.  Reg.  mi.), 
(ii)  The  personages  in  three  closely  related  charters  are  of  the  dates  1060-80. 
(iii)  The  phrase  "  regnante... comite"  belongs  to  the  period  after  the  excom- 
munication of  Emp.  Henry  IV  by  Gregory  VII  in  1076  (cf.  Labruzzi,  pp.  112-13), 
"regnante  domino  Jesu  Christo  "  being  another  form.  William  of  "Franche  Conite  " 
has  "regnante  Guiielmo  in  Burgundia."  Chevalier,  Car/ul.  de  Si  Andr^-ie-ba:, 
p.   61. 

^  Labruzzi,  op.  cit.  pp.  11 1-12,  and  cf.  preceding  note. 

®  See  Poupardin,  Provence,  p.  225,  Labruzzi,  op.  cit.  p.  118. 


io6        The  ancestry  of  Humbert   I   Whitehands 

to  the  church  of  Vienna  after  a  usurpation  by  his  predecessor  in  the 
comitatus  of  Vienne,  and  was  therefore  hardly  a  subject  for  inheritance 
by  his  children.  There  is  no  ground  to  believe  in  Savoyard  rights  over 
it  ^  The  chapel  of  St  Genix  is  merely  stated  to  be  in  Charles-Constan- 
tine's  comitatus  of  Vienne,  and  from  a  further  document  we  learn  it  was 
in  Vienne  city-.  The  patronage  of  the  chapel  had  been  surrendered  to 
King  Conrad  by  Charles-Constantine  by  the  year  943  (or  946)  and 
came  eventually  to  the  Abbey  of  Cluny.  There  is  no  connection  with 
the  town  of  St  Genix  in  Belley  county  in  which  the  Humbertine 
Burchard  owned  land  in  1023.  The  Isle  de  Ciers  appears  to  be  a 
mistaken  identification,  for  the  charter  in  question  (Car.  Reg.  xi.,  see 
above,  p.  45),  even  if  (which  is  doubtful)  it  refers  to  Upertus  son  of 
Charles-Constantine,  belongs  to  the  neighbourhood  of  St  Symphorien 
d'Ozonl  This  fact  however  is  not  wholly  against  Gingins'  theory,  as 
will  be  seen.  I  have  not  come  across  the  evidence  for  Charles- 
Constantine's  possession  of  St  Georges  d' Esperanche  and  Voirons^^ 
which  were  certainly  in  Savoyard  hands  in  the  thirteenth  century.. 
But  the  suzerainty  over  the  barony  of  Tour-du-Pin  in  the  Viennois  and 
the  possession  of  St  Georges  d'Esperanche  were  Savoyard  acquisitions 
of  the  thirteenth  century  °.  So  neither  of  these  rights  goes  back  to 
Charles-Constantine's  rights  as  count,  not  to  mention  the  fact  that 
Queen  Ermengarde  breaks  the  connection,  being  Countess  both  of 
Sermorens  and  the  Viennois.  Haiit-Burciii  and  Bressieux-le-haut  are 
reduplications   by   Gingins   of  the  same  place  Brocianus  Superior  in 


^  Gingins'  statement  is  that  Amadeus  III  in  1125  confirmed  the  donation  of 
St  Alban-de-Cirisin  by  the  Archbishop  of  Vienne  to  the  Abbey  of  St  Ruf.  In 
Chevalier's  Codex  Diplomaticus  Ordinis  Sancti  Riifi  (Bull.  Soc.  Depart,  d'archeol. 
et  Statistique  de  la  Drome  1891,  livr.  99),  p.  23,  I  find  that  Archbishop  Peter 
of  Vienne  and  his  canons  in  1125  confirm  the  gift  to  St  Ruf,  made  by  Arch- 
bishop Guy  (later  Calixtus  II)  of  St  Alban  de  Cisysino  (al.  Cesirin,  v.  id.  p.  ^o). 
Among  the  signatory  canons  are  "Amedeus  archidiaconi...  Amadeus. ..Umbertus  filius 
comitis,  Amedeus."  I  imagine  Gingins  read  "  Umbertus  fihus,  comitis  Amedeus." 
Evidently  the  whole  notion  is  baseless.  Even  if  a  Count  Amedeus  had  subscribed, 
it  would  only  show  he  was  a  canon.     As  it  is,  of  course,  there  is  no  mention  of  him. 

-  See  Bruel,  Chartes...de  Cluny,  i.  (No.  631)  [where  King  Conrad,  to  whom  the 
chapel  of  St  Genix  has  been  surrendered  by  Charles-Constantine  from  his  coinitahis 
of  Vienne,  grants  the  chapel  to  his  chaplain,  Ermentheus,  at  Charles'  request];  and 
id.  II.  p.  15  (No.  900)  [where  Ermentheus  sells  the  chapel  of  St  Genix,  given  him  by 
King  Conrad,  and  situated  "infra  moenia  urbis  Vienne,"  to  the  Abbey  of  Cluny]. 
M.  Poupardin,  Proveiue,  p.  240,  n.  i,  has  avoided  Gingins'  error,  but  has  alsa 
identified  the  chapel  wrongly,  this  time  with  St  Genis  near  Mens  in  Graisivaudan. 

*  Manteyer,  Origines,  pp.  364-6. 

*  I  am  not  clear  that  Gingins  says  (op.  cit.  pp.  222-3)  ^^'^  there  is  any. 

'  See  above,  p.  82.  Bourgoin,  however,  seems  to  have  been  a  Savoyard  fief 
earlier. 


GInglns'  scheme  107 

Agro  Repentmis\  The  latter  is  the  modern  Reventin  just  south  of 
Vienne,  and  since  Brocianus  Superior  is  said  in  another  charter  to 
reach  the  Rhone ^  neither  of  Gingins'  identifications  holds  and  we  are 
taken  quite  outside  Savoyard  lands.  The  evidence,  too,  for  Charles- 
Constantine  being  propertied  near  La  C6te-St-Andre  disappears  with 
the  identification.  Communay''  possessed  by  Charles-Constantine  in  952 
and  Chuzelles  and  Chaponnay  (said  by  Gingins  to  have  been  exchanged 
c.  943  by  Count  Richard,  his  son,  with  Sobo  x^rchbishop  of  Vienne 
against  Marenncs)  were  all  (including  Marennes)  near  St  Symphorien 
d'Ozon"*.  But  the  church  of  St  Symphorien  was  given  by  King  Conrad 
and  Queen  Matilda  to  St  Andre-le-bas  Abbey,  a  grant  renewed  by 
Rudolf  III  in  1015  ;  and  the  curiis  of  Communay  belonging  to  the 
comiiatus  of  Vienne  was  given  to  the  see  of  Vienne  by  the  same 
Rudolf  and  Queen  Ermengarde  in  1013^  Thus  any  notion  of  a  Savoy- 
ard inheritance  direct  from  Charles-Constantine  seems  to  fall  to  the 
ground. 

We  may  conclude  therefore  that  Gingins"  view  has  little  save  the 
name  Upertus  to  say  for  itself.  There  just  remains  the  possibility  of 
course  that  Queen  Ermengarde  was  connected  with  the  Bosonids  in 
some  way.  Her  name  recalls  that  of  Ermengarde  the  wife  of  King 
Boso  of  Provence,  founder  of  the  dynasty.  But,  as  we  have  seen 
(above.  Sect.  iv.  pp.  80,  Z^,  96),  the  Humbertines,  if  they  inherited 
anything  from  her  at  all,  were  not  her  sole  heirs.  Then  of  course 
there  is  the  mysterious  Countess  Ermengarde,  wife  of  Burchard  and 
sister-in-law  of  Whitehands,  but  the  only  probable  relation  of  hers  that 
we  know  is  Count  Aymon,  and  Aymon  is  not  a  Bosonid  name". 

(b)  I  now  come  to  the  views  of  Count  B.  Baudi  di  Vesme'',  and 
Count  Gerbaix-Sonnaz*.  Although  the  latter  does  not  support  the 
Bosonid  descent,   the  father  that  his  genealogy  gives  to  Whitehands 

^  Cf.  Bruel  et  Bernard,  Charles. ..de  Cluny,  ii.  177  (No.  10S4),  186  (No.  1094). 

-  See  Bruel  et  Bernard,  Chartes...de  Cluny,  il.  148  (No.  1053). 

■'  Poupardin,  Provence,  p.  24 1  ;  Bruel,  Charles  de  Cluny,  I.  p.  748  (No.  797). 

■•  M.D.R.  XX.  226.  The  document  I  have  not  been  able  to  find:  and  I  have 
grown  somewhat  suspicious  of  Baron  Gingins'  identifications. 

'  Labruzzi,  op.  cit.  p.  248,  Manteyer,  Paix,  pp.  132-3. 

"  See  Car.  Keg.  Liii.,  cxxxv.,  cxxxvil.  above,  pp.  47,  54-5,  58,  63. 

'  As  Sig.  Baudi  di  Vesme's  promised  work  is  not  yet  out,  I  take  my  information 
as  to  his  views  from  Count  Gerbaix-Sonnaz's  Studi  Slorici  stil  conlado  di  Savoia  e 
marchesato  in  Ilalia,  Vol.  I.  Pt.  I.  pp.  124-5  ^"^  table  opposite,  and  id.  Pt.  II.  p.  xii. 
with  the  modifications  given  in  Sig.  Patrucco's  Aosla  dalle  invasioni  barbariche  alia 
signoria  sabauda  (in  Miscell.  Valdostana,  Bibl.  Soc.  Slor.  Subalpina,  XVII.),  pp.  Ixxi.- 
Ixxiv.  and  tables  on  pp.  Ix.-lxi.,  Ixxviii.-lxxix.). 

*  .See  his  Studi  Slorici  ecc.  Vol.  i.  Pt.  i.  pp.  124-5,  and  table  opposite  p.  125  and 
Vol.  I.  Pt.  II.  p.  xii. 


io8        The  ancestry  of  Humbert   I   Whitehands 

is  the  same  as  Whitehands'  father  in  Count  di  Vesme's  tree.  Thus 
it  is  convenient  to  consider  them  together. 

Both  make  Humbert  Whitehands  the  son  of  a  Count  Boso  and  his 
wife  Adelaide  de  Salins.  But  while  Count  Gerbaix  makes  this  Boso  a 
son  of  a  Count  Anselm  and  his  wife  Rosilde,  Count  di  Vesme's  view  is 
that  he  was  really  a  junior  Bosonid,  being  the  son  of  the  Emperor 
Lewis  the  Blind. 

(i)  For  evidence  of  the  afifiliation  of  Humbert  Whitehands  to 
Count  Boso  and  Adelaide  we  are  referred^  to  a  charter  abstracted  by 
Pierre  de  Rivaz-  in  the  eighteenth  century,  as  follows  :  "  Donation  faite 
au  monastere  de  Cluny  par  Humbert  et  par  Adelaide  sa  soeur,  femme 
du  comte  Boson  et  mere  du  comte  Humbert "  :  with  the  references  for 
identification:  "  Dum  in  hujus...Adalelmi,"  and  note,  "995  env.  Extr. 
du  Cartulaire  de  Cluny  B.  p.  58,  no.  311." 

(ii)  Now,  however,  the  lines  divide.  Count  Baudi  di  Vesme'^ 
claims  that  Boso  is  a  son  of  the  Emperor  Lewis,  without  particulariz- 
ing his  evidence,  and  states  that  he  appears  in  Vol.  11.  of  the  Chartes  de 
Cluny ^  after  926; 

(iii)  while  Count  Gerbaix  appeals'^  to  three  charters  to  show  that 
Count  Boso  was  a  son  of  Count  Anselm  and  Rosilde  :  viz. 

(a)  a  diploma  of  the  Emperor  Lewis  the  Blind,  6th  June  903,  in 
favour  of  Count  Anselm  and  his  wife  Rosilda®; 

{b)  a  diploma  of  912  in  which  there  appear  as  signatories  Count 
Anselm  and  his  son  Boso"; 

{c)  a  charter  of  937  for  Romans  Abbey  given  by  Count  Boso,  son 
of  the  late  Count  Anselm". 

Until  Signor  di  Vesme  publishes  his  evidence  on  count  (ii)  it  is  im- 
possible to  judge  of  its  cogency.  I  have  been  unable  to  trace  the 
reference  in  Vol.  11.  of  the  Cluny  Charters.  It  is  necessary  therefore 
to  put  his  contention  as  to  Count  Boso's  affiliation  on  one  side  for  the 

^  Gerbaix-Sonnaz,  op.  cit.  Vol.  i.  Pt.  11.  p.  xii. 

^  Diplomatique  de  Bourgogne,  I.  No.  108,  published  by  C.  U.  J.  Chevalier, 
Collection  dts  Cartulaires  Dauphinois,  tome  6,  2*^  livraison,  p.  22. 

^  Patrucco,  op.  cit.  p.  Ixxi. 

•*  Bruel  et  Bernard,  Chartes  de  Cluny. 

^  Stiidi  Storici  ecc.  Vol.  I.  Pt.  II.  p.  xii. 

^  U.  Chevalier,  Cartulaire  de  St  Andri-le-bas  de  Vienne[Coll.de  Cartul.  Dauphinois, 
I.),  pp.  221-2,  App.  I.  12*. 

^   Marion,  Cartulaires... de  Grenoble,  p.  59  (A.  No.  24). 

*  Giraud,  Essai  historique  sur  I'Abbaye  de  St  Bernard  et  sur  la  ville  de  Romans, 
Preuves,  i.  153-5.  The  charter  does  not  mention  Count  Boso's  father.  Giraud 
points  out  he  is  unlikely  to  be  the  Count  Boso,  brother  of  King  Hugh  of  Italy ;  and, 
like  Gerbaix,  considers  him  the  son  of  Count  Adalelm  in  the  charter  of  912.  See 
Giraud,  op.  cit.  pp.  27  and  28. 


Schemes  of  Di  Vesme  and   Di  Gerbaix         109 

present  with  all  due  reserves ^  As  to  Count  Gerbaix'  view  under  (iii) 
we  are  better  off.  It  is  obviously  a  hard  saying  from  a  chronological 
point  of  view,  that  the  Count  Boso,  already  a  signatory  in  912  and 
whose  father  was  dead  in  937,  should  be  identical  with  a  Count 
Boso  in  c.  994. 

I  may  mention  in  passing,  with  regard  to  (a)  and  {l>),  that  in  the 
precept  dated  6th  June  903  of  the  Emperor  Lewis  the  Blind'-  the 
names  are  Count  Adalelmus  and  his  wife  Rotlindis,  and  in  the  charter 
of  912  we  equally  find  Count  Adalelmus  and  his  son  Boso. 

But  the  crux  of  the  matter  lies  in  (i).  Was  there  a  Count  Boso  with 
a  son  Count  Humbert  in  994  or  995  ?  If  so,  where  were  their  posses- 
sions ?  Fortunately  the  charter  adduced  in  proof  of  the  fact  has  been 
identified  through  Rivaz'  references  by  M.  de  Manteyer^  with  No.  2143 
in  the  Recueil  des  Chartes  de  Clufiy^.  In  the  document  as  pubhshed 
by  M.  Bruel,  Humbert,  son  of  Euphemia  and  brother  of  Adelaide, 
makes  a  grant  to  Cluny,  then  under  Abbot  Odilo  (994 — i  Jan.  1049), 
of  rights  in  Jalogny  near  Cluny.  Among  the  signatories  appear 
Josserand,  son  of  Euphemia,  and  a  second  Humbert,  son  of  Adelaide. 
No  title  of  Count  is  given  to  this  second  Humbert,  nor  does  Count 
Boso  appear  at  all.  The  land  in  question  is  far  away  from  the  Hum- 
bertine  district,  and  it  seems  that  Humbert  son  of  Euphemia  is 
connected  with  the  viscounts  of  Lyons ^ 

We  thus  find  that  up  to  the  present  there  has  been  no  evidence, 
which  bears  criticism,  brought  forward  in  favour  of  a  Count  Boso 
being  father  of  Humbert  Whitehands. 

(C)  Next  in  order  comes  the  theory  of  Baron  Carutti",  which  may 
be  called  the  local  Burgundian  descent.  In  expounding  it  (as  in  the 
case  of  those  of  Count  di  Vesme  and  Count  Gerbaix),  I  omit  his 
hypothesis  on  the  two  Humbertine  lines.  This,  however,  is  in  no  way 
necessary  to  his  main  argument.  Briefly,  his  suggestions  are  that 
Whitehands  was  the  son  of  Count  Amadeus  who  appears  in  974^ 
the  contemporary  Count  Humbert  being  his  paternal  uncle  (who  is  then, 

^  Poupardin,  Provence,  pp.  268-9,  knows  only  two  sons  of  Lewis  the  Blind,  viz. 
Charles-Constantine  and  Rudolf,  living  in  929  {CharUs...de  Cluny,  I.  No.  379).  He 
considers  Charles-Constaniine  to  have  been  illegitimate,  on  the  authority  of  Richer, 
Bk.  III.  cap.  98  {M.G.H.  Script,  iii.  609). 

^  See  above,  p.  108,  n.  6. 

^  Manteyer,  Origines,  pp.  420-1. 

■*  Bruel,  diaries. ..de  Cluny,  ill.  322,  No.  2143. 

»  Bruel  et  Bernard,  Chartes. ..de  Cluny,  iv.  34-5,  No.  2831,  Manteyer,  loc.  cit., 
cf.  Labruzzi,  La  Monarchia  di  Savoia,  pp.  123-5.  Euphemia's  husband,  Wigo,  is 
Viscount. 

*   Umberto  Biancamano,  pp.  162-75. 

'  See  above,  pp.  45  and  57,  Car.  Keg.  xiii. 


iio        The  ancestry  of  Humbert   I   Whitehands 

by  Baron  Carutti's  further  theory,  ancestor  of  his  second  Humbertine 
line).  These  two  would  be  sons  of  a  Humbert,  who  appears  as  Count 
in  Car.  Reg.  xi.  (976)  (see  above,  pp.  45  and  57)  and  untitled  in  a 
placitiun  held  by  King  Conrad  in  the  Viennois  in  943'.  This  Humbert 
again  would  be  son  of  an  Amadeus  who  appears  in  926  at  Geneva  at  a 
placitum  concerning  \}c\q  pagus  Equestricus^. 

In  support  of  his  theory  Baron  Carutti  brings  forward  a  series  of 
evidences,  which  may  be  thus  summarized. 

(i)  The  family  law  of  the  Humbertines  was  Roman.  This  is 
shown  by  three  charters.  Car.  Reg.  ccxxi.  belonging  to  Agnes  daughter 
of  Marquess  Peter  I  in  1091^  Car.  Reg.  ccxxvii.-'and  Car.  Reg.  ccxxxvi.'^ 
belonging  to  Count  Humbert  H  in  1094  and  1098.  Now  the  effect  of 
these  charters,  especially  Car.  Reg.  ccxxvii.,  is  to  show  us  the  Hum- 
bertines as  of  Roman  provincial,  or  at  least  Romanized  barbarian 
descent.  This  very  well  agrees  with  their  first  appearance  in  Burgundy; 
for  in  that  kingdom,  not  only  were  the  Roman  provincials  better  off 
than  elsewhere,  from  the  first  barbarian  settlement  onwards,  says  Carutti, 
and  quite  eligible  for  the  highest  offices,  but  also  the  Germanic  Burgun- 
dian  law,  the  Lex  Gundobada,  was  disliked  by  the  Church  and  hence 
was  often  exchanged  for  the  Roman  law  by  trueborn  Burgundians''. 

(ii)  The  House  of  Savoy  kept  with  great  tenacity  their  family 
names.  Now  the  chief  of  these  were  Amadeus  and  Humbert,  used  at 
first  in  alternate  generations  for  the  eldest  son.  We  ought  then  to  find 
Whitehands'  father  named  Amadeus,  his  grandfather  Humbert  and  so 
on.  Amadeus  was  clearly  more  favoured  by  the  family  than  Humbert; 
and  it  was  a  strictly  Roman  name,  late  and  rarely  used  by  men  of 
Germanic  descent. 

(iii)  Some  of  the  documents  favour  this  descent  by  their  localities. 
Car.  Reg.  xiii.  is  from  the  Viennois,  Car.  Reg.  xi.  actually  from  the  Isle 
de  Ciers  in  \}!\^  pagus  of  Belley,  Car.  Reg.  v.  is  of  the  Viennois. 

(iv)  The  fabulous  Chroniqiies  de  Savoie'  represent  Berold,  whom  they 
give  as  Humbert  Whitehands'  father,  as  warring  with  the  Piedmontese 

^  Car.  Keg.  v.  Reritm  Gallicarum  et  Francarum  Scriptores,  X.  696,  and  Charles 
de  Cluny,  i.  580. 

Car.  Heg.  11.  Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  i. 

^  Muletti,  Memoru...di  Saluzzo,  i.  282,  "Agnes  filia  quondam  Petri  marchionis  et 
relicta  olim  Friderici,  que  professa  sum  lege  vivere  Romana." 

■*  Carte  vesccrvili  d' Ivrea  {Bibl.  Soc.  Star.  Subalp.  v.),  p.  13,  "  Ubertus  filius 
quondam  Amedeo  qui  professo  [sic]  sum  ex  nacione  mea  lege  vivere  Romana."  The 
Latin  is  half  Romance  here,  as  often  in  eleventh  centurj'  Piedmontese  documents. 

'  Cartario  dell'  abbazia  di  Pinerolo  {B.S.S.S.  II.),  p.  42,  "  Unbertus  comes  filius 
quondam  Amedei  qui  professus  sum  lege  vivere  Romana." 

^  Cf.  Carutti,  op.  cit.  pp.  3-5. 

■  M.H.P.  Script.  II.  60-73. 


Carutti's  scheme  1 1 1 

in  Maurienne,  on  behalf  of  the  King  of  Burgundy,  while  the  Genoese, 
allies  of  the  Piedmontese,  were  being  defeated  in  Provence.  Now 
c.  952-75  the  marauding  Saracens,  who  in  late  medieval  legendary 
chronicles  are  styled  Genoese,  were  being  driven  from  their  strongholds 
on  the  Alps  and  in  Provence ;  in  the  legend  of  the  Chronicle  of  Nova- 
lesa^  a  Saracen  called  Aymon  treats  with  Count  Robald  of  Provence, 
who  with  Marquess  Ardoin  of  Turin's  aid  expels  them  from  Frascene- 
•dellum  :  Aymon's  descendants  still  existed  c.  1060  when  the  Chronicle 
of  Novalesa  was  compiled.  The  Fraxinetum  referred  to  is  probably 
Freney  in  Maurienne,  not  Frainet  of  Provence.  Since  Aymon  was  a 
family  name  of  the  Humbertines,  and  not  a  Saracen  name ;  could  not 
the  Aymon  here  be  really  a  Christian,  allied  with  the  Saracens,  and  an 
ancestor  of  the  Humbertines,  who  would  thus  be  returning  to  their 
ancient  home  in  the  valley  of  Maurienne  ?  The  latter,  not  having  been 
Teutonized,  was  a  "fit  place  of  origin  for  a  house  professing  Roman  Law. 

It  will  be  best  to  examine  these  arguments  seriatim. 

(i)  The  hereditary  Roman  Law  of  the  Humbertines  about  iioo  is 
not  very  certain.  To  begin  with,  at  that  date  there  was  in  process 
a  steady  adoption  of  Roman  Law  by  men  of  Teutonic  descent.  This 
was  especially  the  case  with  ecclesiastics-.  Further  the  legal  phrase, 
which  seems  so  precise,  "  ex  natione  mea,"  is  demonstrably  used  by 
persons  who  had  adopted  Roman  Law,  having  been  born  in  another, 
e.g.  in  1096  two  brothers  Roland  and  Ranuccio  profess  Lombard  Law 
£x  tiatione  nostra,  their  third  brother,  a  priest,  Martin,  declares  Roman 
Law  pro  honore  sacerdotii,  for  the  honour  of  the  priesthood.  But  in 
1098  Roland  and  Ranuccio  themselves  profess  Roman  Law  ex  natione 
nostra,  and  add  to  the  confusion  by  reverting  to  Lombard  Law  ex 
natione  tiostra  in  1099''.  Thus  the  profession  of  Roman  Law  c.  iioo 
cannot  be  relied  on  as  evidence  for  the  true  race  of  the  individual  who 
professes  it.  One  of  the  charters,  too,  and  it  is  the  one  which  has  "  ex 
nacione  mea,"  is  assigned  by  Prof.  Gabotto'*,  with  much  probability,  not 
to  Humbert  II  at  all,  but  to  his  namesake,  a  Count  of  the  Canavese'. 

'  Cipolla,  Moiiumenta  iVovaliciensia,  11.  260. 

^  See  Labruzzi,  La  Monarchia  di  Savoia,  pp.  224-38,  whom  I  am  following  in 
this  argument.  Sig.  Labruzzi  quotes  from  Giorgetti,  Ntiove  osscrvazioni  sulia  pro- 
fessione  di  legge  nel  medio  evo,  Arch.  stor.  ital.,  Ser.  IV.  Vol.  in.  (1879),  and  Zdekauer 
in  the  Nuova  Antologia,  13  Ap.  1888,  p.  733.  Cf.  Mayer,  Ilalienische  Verfasstmgs- 
geschichte,  i.  25-9.  The  Salic  Ardoinid  Bishop  Alric  of  Asti  (1008-35)  '^  ^^ 
€arly  example  of  the  profession  of  Roman  Law,  pro  honore  sacerdotii.  See  below, 
p.  169. 

**  See  Labruzzi,  loc.  cii.,  quoting  from  Giorgetti,  op.  cit. 

*  Carte  vescovili  d^Ivrea,  B.S.S.S.  v.  p.  13. 

*  See  below,  p.  171.  But  I  confess  to  doubts  owing  to  the  name  of  the 
witness,  *'  Ponzo  de  Camoseto,"  which  looks  like  Chamousset,  near  Ayton  in  Savoy. 


112        The  ancestry  of  Humbert   I   Whitehands 

But  there  lies  a  further  difficulty  in  the  fact  that  in  a  charter  to  the 
Abbey  of  Pinerolo  in  1131,  Humbert  II's  son,  Amadeus  III,  professes 
Salic  Law  ex  natione  sua}.  Now  if  the  charter  and  these  words  in 
it  are  genuine,  we  have  a  contradictory  tradition  of  the  law  of  the 
Humbertines ;  and  it  seems  more  likely  that  they  would  change  to  the 
conquering  Roman  Law  from  the  Salic,  than  vice  versa. 

(ii)  The  use  of  the  alternate  names  Amadeus  and  Humbert  is  very 
marked.  All  one  can  say  against  its  being  employed  as  an  argument 
here  is,  that  the  custom  must  have  had  its  beginning,  and  why  not 
c  1000?  The  Counts  of  the  Genevois  adopt  the  name  Amadeus 
c.  1050,  apparently  as  a  result  of  a  Humbertine  alliance'^.  Could  not 
some  such  cause  account  for  the  Humbertine  usages  ?  Still  it  remains 
true,  that  we  would  expect  Whitehands'  father  to  be  called  Amadeus. 

(iii)  This  of  course  agrees  very  well  with  the  conclusions  of 
Section  iv.  I  may  remark  that  M.  de  Manteyer  has  shown'*  that  Car. 
Reg.  XIII.  refers  to  Mions  near  Chandieu  and  St  Symphorien  d'Ozon 
and  not  to  the  Isle  de  Ciers.  But  it  still  remains  close  to  the  Viennois. 
On  the  other  hand  Car.  Reg.  11.^  relates  to  Geneva,  and  its  locality 
cannot  be  given  as  a  support  either  for  the  Amadeus  in  it  being  a 
Humbertine,  or  for  the  local  Burgundian  origin  of  the  latter  race. 

(iv)  We  are  here,  as  Baron  Carutti  states,  amid  conjectures. 
Doubtless  the  Humbertines  worked  up  the  mountain  valleys  from  the 
west.  They  would  hardly  have  attained  their  position,  unless  they  had 
been  successful  in  warding  off  the  Saracens,  since  that  was  the  test  of 
personal  capacity  in  Burgundy  in  the  tenth  century.  But  there  seems 
little  reason  to  dissociate  the  tale  in  the  Chronicle  of  Novalesa  from  the 
well-known  capture  of  Frainet  (Fraxinetum)  in  Provence  in  972-5'.  As 
for  the  name  Aymon,  a  renegade  Saracen  would  surely  have  to  become 
a  Christian  and  take  a  baptismal  name.  Aymon,  too,  I  remember 
seeing  in  a  twelfth  or  thirteenth  century  chronicle*  used  to  represent 
the  Saracen  name  Othman.  In  any  case  there  seems  no  real  ground  to 
suppose  a  Christian  ally  of  the  Saracens ;  or  that  the  Humbertines  had 
an  ancestral  connection  with  Maurienne. 

(v)  There  remains  the  actual  genealogy  produced  by  Baron  Carutti 
to    consider''.     Certainly   the    two    Viennois    Counts    Amadeus    and 

1  Car.  Reg.  cmxlviii.  [Cartario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  ll.  p.  54). 

2  MoWea,  Le prime  re lazioni  ecc.  pp.  14-15.     Cf.  below,  p.  lat. 

^  Origines,  pp.  364-6,  and  see  above,  p.  106.  I  should  say  that  Carutti  con- 
siders this  charter  much  interpolated,  but  Gabotto  pronounces  it  quite  genuine 
(Cariario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.   ll.  p.   55). 

*  See  above,  p.  no. 

5  See  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  pp.  97-101,  and  below,  pp.  145-7. 

*  I  have  mislaid  the  reference. 
^  See  above,  pp.  109-10. 


De   Manteyer's  scheme  113 

Humbert  are  very  suitable  by  date,  locality  and  rank.  The  phrase  used 
by  Count  Humbert  Whitehands  about  his  antecessor  in  the  oath  to  the 
Peace  of  God  seems  to  imply  a  large  inheritance  in  the  Viennois, 
Sermorens  and  Belley\  Then  the  Humbert  who  appears  in  943^  is  not 
badly  placed ;  but  his  name  follows  that  of  a  Count  Leotald,  and  Count 
Leotald  of  Macon  had  a  brother  Humbert  at  that  date^.  As  for  the 
Amadeus  at  Geneva,  he  appears  to  have  been  only  a  scabinus  present  at 
a  law-suit,  and  there  is  no  indication  either  as  to  his  rank  or  the 
locality,  which  would  lead  us  to  connect  him  with  the  Humbertines^. 

To  sum  up,  the  real  point  in  favour  of  Baron  Carutti's  view  is  its 
intrinsic  probability.  When  so  early-famous  a  race  as  that  of  Savoy 
emerges  from  the  Dark  Ages  with  no  reminiscence  of  its  origin — for 
we  may  treat  the  ridiculous  Berold  legend  as  proof  of  that — we  need 
not  suppose  that  its  origin  was  peculiarly  royal  or  illustrious.  In  short, 
great  nobles  of  the  locality  where  the  race  first  appears  are  the  most 
likely  ancestors  at  first  sight. 

(D)  Most  recent  of  all  these  theories  on  the  Humbertine  origins 
is  that  of  M.  de  Manteyer,  which  he  has  developed  and  strengthened  in 
the  three  treatises  to  which  I  have  such  frequent  occasion  to  refer. 
His  argument  may  be  divided  into  two  parts  : 

{a)  He  proves  that  Archbishop  Theobald  of  Vienne  (c.  957-1001) 
was  the  son  of  a  Count  Hugh,  nephew  of  King  Hugh  of  Provence,  and 
the  brother  of  a  Count  Hucbert-Hubert ;  and  that  both  Count  Hugh 
and  Archbishop  Theobald  had  great  domains  in  the  Viennois  and 
Sermorens,  which  included  the  great  tract  of  Octavion^  and  the  castle 
of  Tolvon  near  Voirons.  Through  his  father,  Theobald  descended 
from  the  Counts  of  Troyes  in  France ;  through  his  mother  Willa  or 

1  Cf.  above,  pp.  23,  78-85,  100. 

^  See  above,  p.  1 10. 

^  See  Labruzzi,  op.  cil.  pp.  134-7,  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  p.  216. 

•*  See  Labruzzi,  op.  cit.  pp.  132-4.  Similarly,  Prof.  Gabotto's  aljandoned  identi- 
fication of  Girardus  in  Chron.  Altac.  with  Gerard  de  Beaujeu  and  with  the  father 
which  the  Amadeus  of  Car.  Reg.  II.  must  have  had  (see  above,  p.  loi,  n.  1)  is  pure 
conjecture. 

"  This  was  a  property  of  King  Hugh  ;  it  contained  700  ttiansi  and  perhaps 
it  may  have  included  the  whole  Archpriestdom  of  Octavion  or  Romans,  that  is 
the  block  of  land  between  St  Martin-d'Aout  and  Romans  on  the  Isere ;  but  M.  de 
Manteyer  thinks  it  was  only  Chatillon-St-Jean  and  neighbourhood.  See  Manteyer, 
Ongines,  pp.  442-5.  M.  de  Manteyer  reckons  the  mansus  equal  to  i2jugera,  so  700 
inansi=2ioo  hectares.  But  we  have  to  take  into  account  the  sparseness  of  the 
population ;  a  mansus  was  above  all  the  dwelling  and  land  of  a  serf-family.  In  any 
given  territory  there  would  be  much  over,  forest,  meadow  and  demesne  land.  Thus 
what  we  want  is  a  tract,  supporting  700  serf-families,  i.e.  quite  3500  souls,  at  a  time 
when  the  population  was  depleted  and  much  land  waste.  So,  after  all,  the  Arch- 
priestdom may  be  nearer  the  truth. 

P.  O.  8 


114        The  ancestry  of  Humbert  I   Whitehands 

Wilterma  he  was  connected  with  the  Kings  of  Jurane  Burgundy ; 
through  his  paternal  grandmother  Theoberga  with  the  line  of  Hugh  of 
Provence. 

{b)  He  considers  that  Count  Hucbert-Hubert,  who  appears  in  the 
Troiesin  indeed,  but  is  not  its  Count,  and  is  brother  of  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Vienne,  is  the  Count  Humbertus  of  976  (Car.  Reg.  xi.)  at 
Mions  and  the  father  of  Count  Humbert-Hubert  Whitehands  of  Savoy. 
Further  in  view  of  the  name  Amadeus  in  the  Anscarid  Ivrean  house,  he 
is  inclined  to  identify  the  Count  Amadeus  in  the  Viennois  in  957—74 
with  Amadeus  of  Mosezzo,  son  of  Marquess  Anscari  and  nephew  of 
King  Berengar  H  of  Italy  :  and  then  to  consider  this  Amadeus  to  be  the 
father-in-law  of  Count  Humbert-Hubert  and  grandfather  of  White- 
hands  \ 

We  thus  have  a  descent  as  follows  : 


I 1 

Gamier  =  Theoberga  Hugh  of  Provence 

Ct  of  Troyes  I 
+925         I 

r -^ T' -1 

Richard  =  (i)   Hugh   (2)  =  Willa  Manasses 

Ct  of  Troyes  I        Ct  of  ...  ?  daughter  of  Richard  Archbishop 

in  926  I  le  justicier  and  of  Aries  &c. 

Boso  Adelaide  of 

Jurane  Burgundy 

r; 1 1 

Gamier  Hubert  Theobald 

Ct  of  ...  Archbishop  of  Vienne 

I  ?  ob.  looi 

Humbert  Whitehands 
Ct  of  Savoy  and  Belley 

Of  these  two  divisions  of  the  argument  {a)  is  so  securely  established 
that  I  need  only  run  over  the  heads  of  the  proofs. 

(i)  Garnier,  Count  of  Troyes  and  Viscount  of  Sens,  was  killed  in 
battle  with  the  Norsemen  at  Chalaux  in  Department  of  Nievre  925  ^ 

(ii)  He  left  a  son  Count  Richard  who  succeeded  him  (926,  932) 
at   Troyes   and   Sens.     The   latter   disappears,  and  a  new    family  of 

1  I  omit  M.  de  Manteyer's  ingenious  identification  of  Count  Hugh  with  the  Hugh 
Count  Palatine  of  Jurane  Burgundy  in  926  {^Origines,  pp.  461-5),  as  there  is  only 
homonymy  to  support  it ;  and  it  does  not  promote  his  theory.  See  Poupardin, 
Bourgogne,  p.  263,  n.  2.  I  also  omit  his  viev/s  as  to  the  personalities  of  the  Count 
Aymon  and  Countess  Ermengarde  of  Car.  J\eg.  Llll.,  cxxxvii.,  vi^hom  he  thinks  a 
Count  Aymon,  vassal  of  Lambert,  Bp  of  Langres  (v.  Car.  Reg.  LH.  above,  p.  49), 
and  his  sister  {Origines,  pp.  508-14).  This  does  not  explain  why  Ermengarde  is 
Countess  in  her  own  right. 

■■'  For  M.  de  Manteyer's  argument,  see  his  Origines,  pp.  430-65,  485-94,  Notes 
additionnelles ,  pp.  257-71,  and  Paix,   pp.  127-8. 

-     *  Manteyer,  Origines,  pp.  451-4,  where  authorities  are  given,  and  Notes  addition- 
nelles, pp.  311-12. 


De  Manteyer's   scheme  1 1 5 

Counts  of  Troyes  begins  with  Herbert  Count  of  Vermandois  who 
died  in  943  ^ 

(iii)  We  find  in  Provence  920-59  three  brothers,  Manasses  Arch- 
bishop of  Aries,  Richard  and  Count  Hugh,  sons  of  Garnier  and  of 
Theoberga,  sister  of  Hugh  of  Provence,  the  King  of  Italy^. 

(iv)  Homonyms  of  Manasses  and  Richard,  who  exist  in  French 
Burgundy,  and  the  fact  that  (see  v)  Count  Hugh,  his  wife  and  children 
possessed  lands  in  the  Troiesin,  show  that  their  father  Garnier  is  the 
Count  of  Troyes  (ob.  925  )l 

(v)  Count  Hugh's  second  wife  is  Willa  or  Wilterma"',  a  relation  of 
the  Juranian  kings  of  Burgundy.  His  sons  are  Boso  by  his  first  wife  ; 
and,  by  Willa,  Garnier  who  dies  before  his  mother.  Count  Hucbert  or 
Hubert  and  Theobald  Archbishop  of  Vienne  {g^y-iooi}^. 

(vi)  Count  Hugh's  possessions  in  the  Viennois  included  the  cur^i's 
of  Octavion  (near  and  perhaps  including  Romans  on  the  Isere,  see 
above,  p.  113,  n.  5),  which  was  given  him  by  his  uncle  King  Hugh,  and 
the  castle  of  Tolvon  near  Voirons,  as  well  as  large  domains  in  the 
county  of  Sermorens*^. 

^  Manteyer,  Origines,  pp.  451,  454-6. 

'^  Manteyer,  Origines,  pp.  439-41,  Bruel,  Charles  de  Cluny,  i.  pp.  681—3, 
Chevalier,  Cartul.  de  St  Andr^-le-bas  de  Vienne,  pp.  2^2-^  {^Collection  de  Cartiilaires 
Daitphinois). 

■*  Manteyer,  Origines,  pp.  445-56,  45S,  461,  Documents  quoted,  434-5,  from 
A.  Giry,  Etudes  Carolingiennes,  V.  no.  27  (Etudes  d^histoire  du  Moyen  Age  d^di^es  h 
Gabriel  Monod,  p.  135).  And  cf.  Life  of  Archbp  Theobald,  cited  in  n.  5  below, 
showing  Theobald  born  in  the  Viennois,  but  bred  in  France.  "  Cum  autem  ad 
maturos  pervenisset  annos,  Franciam  deseruit,  Burgundiam  revisere  concupivit,  in  qua 
etiam  in  Tulnioni  (/.  Tulvioni)  castro  natus  fuit." 

■*  M.  de  Manteyer,  N^otes  additionnelles,  p.  300,  explains  Wilterma  as  a  misreading 
for  Willerma,  which  itself  would  be  a  late  medieval  misreading  for  Willa,  a  careless 
transcription  of  Willa. 

^  See  Manteyer,  Origines,  pp.  434-7,  Notes  additionnelles,  p.  265,  Paix,  p.  127. 
Documents,  (i)  published  by  M.  Giry  (see  above,  n.  3)  (a)  Ap.  927,  r«  Jeugny  and  Mon- 
tieramy  both  in  the  Troiesin,  "  S.  Hugonis  comitis...S.  Wilae  uxoris  ejus,  S.  Bosonis 
fiiii  ejus,  S.  Warnerii  ipsorum  filii."  {b)  Aug.  967 — March  986,  at  Foucheres  in 
the  Troiesin  re  land  in  diocese  of  Autun ;  "Ego  Willa  comitissa  propter  remedium 
animae  senioris  mei  Hugonis,  memor  filiorum  nostrorum  Theutboldi  archiepiscopi  et 
Hucberti  seu  Warnerii  defuncti...S.  Theutboldi  archiepiscopi.  S.  Huberti  comitis  qui 
consensit."  (2)  published  by  Manteyer,  Notes  additionnelles,  pp.  264-6,  Life  of 
Archbp  Theobald.  His  father  Hugh  "inter  primos  palatii,  non  infimus"  married 
"  Burgundionis  regis  neptem,  vocatam  de  nomine  Wiltermam." 

*  King  Hugh  gave  Octavion  to  his  nephew  Count  Hugh  by  charter,  24  June  936 
(Chevalier,  Cartulaire  de  St  Andri-le-bas,  pp.  232-3).  Archbishop  Theobald  was 
born  at  Tolvon  (see  above,  n.  3).  Tulnioni  has  to  be  corrected  into  Tulvioni,  see 
Notes  additionnelles,  pp.  268-9.  The  Life  of  Theobald  is  also  the  authority  for  the 
domains  in  Sermorens,  "  Erat  autem  tunc  temporis  dives  opibus  et  haereditate 
locupletissimus  quarum  multa  erant  in  subjecto  urbis  Viennensis  vicecomitatu 
Salmoracensi." 


ii6        The  ancestry  of  Humbert  I   Whitehands 

(vii)  Theobald  became  Archbishop  of  Vienne  probably  in  957  by 
the  favour  of  his  cousin,  King  Conrad  of  Burgundy,  after  a  vacancy  of 
at  least  eight  years'. 

When  we  come  to  M.  de  Manteyer's  contention  {b)  that  Count 
Hucbert-Hubert  is  Count  Humbert  at  Mions  and  the  father  of  Hum- 
bert-Hubert Whitehands  etc.,  we  are  on  less  certain  ground.  His 
reasons^  are  as  follows: 

(i)  The  names  of  Hubert  (derived  from  Hucbert  etc.)  and  of 
Humbert  are  much  confused  in  Burgundy  in  the  early  Middle  Age. 
Whitehands'  real  name  was  Hubert,  Humbert  being  the  rarer  form  in 
originals  of  his.  Thus  we  have  the  transmission  of  one  of  the  family 
names  at  leasts 

(ii)  The  dates  are  suitable.  Count  Hucbert-Hubert  would  be 
born  about  930,  for  he  is  not  mentioned  in  the  diploma  of  927.  He 
was  living  between  967  and  986,  and  could  be  father,  although  a  rather 
old  one,  for  Whitehands  who  was  born  about  975. 

(iii)  Hucbert-Hubert,  like  his  father  Hugh,  was  Count  of  some 
pagus.  The  family  had  lost  Troyes.  But  he  would  keep  the  great 
domains  in  the  Viennois  and  Sermorens  which  had  been  acquired  by 
his  father  Count  Hugh.  Here  accordingly  we  find  Count  Humbert 
acting  near  St  Symphorien  d'Ozon  in  976,  just  where  the  later  Savoyards 
had  much  territory,  and  also  a  Count  Humbert  in  the  Viennois  in  974 ^ 
Archbishop  Theobald's  lands  lay  especially  in  Sermorens,  just  where 
the  later  Savoyards  had  a  mass  of  territory,  and  his  birthplace  was  at 
Tolvon,  which  the  Counts  of  Savoy  actually  possessed  in  demesne  in 

1355'- 

(iv)  Theobald's  successor  as  Archbishop  of  Vienne  was  Burchard 
the  Anselmid,  and  brother-in-law  of  Whitehands.  Now  the  Anselmids 
had  no  connection  with  Vienne  or  the  Viennois,  and  Burgundian  sees 
were  then  given  by  family  influence,  and  often  descended  from  uncle  to 
nephew,  as  did  Lyons  and  Grenoble  for  instance.  Thus  we  want  some 
relative  of  Theobald  to  have  an  interest  in  promoting  Burchard ;  and 
Whitehands  was  precisely  brother-in-law  of  the  latter^. 

(v)  Further  there  are  some  clauses^  in  Count  Humbert  White- 
hands'  oath  to  the  Peace  of  God,  so  important  that  it  is  best  to  quote 

^  Manteyer,  Notes  additionnelles,  pp.  265-7.     I^i  the  Life  Conrad  is  called  variously 
•'consanguineus"  and  "avunculus." 

2  Origiiies,  pp.  481-3,  494-501.     Notes  additionnelles,  pp.  257-307. 

3  Notes  additionjielles,  pp.  442-92. 

•*  M.  de  Manteyer  suggests  the  county  was  probably  Savoy  proper.      Origines, 
pp.  515-16. 

5  Origines,  pp.  441-6,  489-94.     Notes  additionnelles,  pp.  259-60,  264-9. 
^   Origines,  pp.  481-3.     Notes  additionnelles,  pp.  260-1. 
7  Faix,  pp.  95,  96,  97. 


De  Manteyer's  scheme  117 

them  verbally.  "  In  terris  autem  sanctorum  episcopatus  Viennensis 
ecclesiae  quas  nunc  in  comunia  tenent  vel  in  antea  adquisierint 
cannonici  vel  monachi  seu  sanctimoniales,  malas  consuetudines  ibi  non 
inponam  ;  neque  per  hostes  neque  per  cavalcadas  albergarias  faciam  ; 
si  mutare  potuero  me  sciente ;  et  si  mutare  non  potuero  et  ibi  alber- 
gariam  per  necessitatem  fecero,  et  ad  rationem  missus  fuero,  infra  xv. 
dies  ad  possibilem  emendacionem  veniam,  si  recipere  voluerint  aut  si 
perdonaverint.  In  terris  autem  clericorum,  monachorum  et  sanctimo- 
nialium  quas  ego  in  comanda  teneo  plus  non  accipiam  nisi  tantum 
quantum  antecessor  meus  accepit  in  tempore  Theutbaldi  archiepiscopi 
Viennensis  sine  reclamatorio ;  et,  si  accepero  vel  aliquis  ex  meis,  infra 
XXX.  dies  quibus  ad  rationem  missus  fuero  illis  emendabo  quantum  pro- 
bare  potuerint  quod  antecessor  meus  non  accepit  in  vita  Theutbaldi 

archiepiscopi  si  non  perdonaverit Per  illam  vero  terram  quae  mihi 

aut  uxori  meae  aut  filiis  meis  tolta  est  de  xxx.  annis  usque  ad  hoc  con- 
cilium, contra  ilium  hominem  qui  eam  terram  tenuerit  pacem  non  in- 

fringam  usque  ilium  ad  rationem  mittam  per  nomen  de  ista  pace  etc 

Excepto  in  illis  terris  quae  sunt  de  meo  alodo  aut  de  beneficio  sive  de 
franchiziis  sive  de  comandis  etc."     From  these  sentences  we  may  infer 

(a)  that  Whitehands  held  in  the  Viennois  etc.  :  the  advocacy  of 
the  cathedral  chapter  of  Vienne,  as  well  as  that  of  some  monasteries 
(at  least  one  of  monks  and  one  of  nuns) ; 

(d)     and  ecclesiastical  lands  m  commendam  ; 

{c)  that  Whitehands  had  inherited  {a)  and  {b)  from  an  ancestor 
who  lived  in  the  time  of  Archbishop  Theobald ; 

(^)  that  Whitehands'  father  had  died  over  30  years  before,  and 
before  the  Council  of  Anse  994-5  ; 

{e)  that  some  of  Whitehands'  lands  had  been  lost  by  him  to  some- 
one in  these  30  years.  Then  Theobald  will  have  invested  his  brother 
Hucbert-Hubert  or  his  father  Hugh  with  the  advocacies  of  his  see  and 
of  the  chapter,  besides  granting  in  commendams  to  them.  The  abbey 
of  St  Andre-le-bas  and  the  nunnery  of  St  Andre-le-haut  would  follow 
suit.  But  Burchard  on  succeeding  to  the  archbishopric  deprived  his 
brother-in-law  Humbert-Hubert  Whitehands  of  the  advocacy  of  the  see, 
giving  it,  as  we  know',  to  his  own  brother  Count  Ulric,  and  thus  we 
come  on  Whitehands'  grievance  in  1025^ 

(vi)  To  these  reasons  we  may  add  the  full  explanation  given  by 
the  scheme,  of  Whitehands'  great  position  in  Burgundy  and  in  the 
Viennois  in  particular,  and  of  the  beginning  of  his  alliance  with  the 
Jurane  royal  housed 


'  See  above,  pp.  67-8. 
2  Paix,  pp.  124-40. 


ii8        The  ancestry  of  Humbert  I   Whitehands 

Let  us  now  review  these  arguments  and  see  what,  if  any,  exceptions 
may  be  taken  to  them.     First,  as  to 

(i)  The  confusion  of  the  names  Hubert  and  Humbert  in  Burgundy 
at  this  date  is  very  clear,  but  I  believe  M.  de  Manteyer  has  been  able 
to  produce  no  other  instance  of  the  same  man  being  called  Hucbert 
and  Humbert,  which  is  necessary  if  the  identification  of  Count  Huc- 
bert-Hubert  with  Count  Humbert  at  Mions  is  to  stand. 

(ii)  The  age  problem  is  not  quite  conveniently  solved.  One  would 
think  that  Garnier,  son  of  Count  Hugh,  would  be  more  than  a  baby  in 
927,  and  there  seems  no  reason  to  defer  so  much  the  birth  of  Count 
Hucbert-Hubert.     Still  this  is  a  small  matter. 

(iii)  The  evidence  for  Count  Hugh  and  his  son  being  counts  in  or 
near  the  Viennois  seems  very  strong.  But  the  identification  of  Huc- 
bert-Hubert with  the  Count  Humbert  at  Mions  in  957-74  and  the 
Count  Humbert  of  976  seems  doubtful  as  mentioned  above  under  (i). 
This  leaves  us  three  districts  certainly  connected  with  the  Troiesin 
family,  viz.  Octavion,  the  castle  of  Tolvon  and  Sermorens.     Now 

(a)  Octavion  near  Romans  shows  no  connection  with  the  later 
Savoyards  from  Whitehands  onwards ;  but  it  was  in  the  county  of 
Vienne  or  Albon  held  of  the  Archbishops  by  the  Dauphin  I 

{^)  Tolvon  certainly  belonged  in  demesne  to  the  Count  of  Savoy 
i"  135s  '}  but  in  1125  it  belonged  to  the  Bocsozel  and  Moirans  families^ 
and  though  the  Counts  of  Savoy  may  have  been  their  suzerains,  there  is 
not  evidence  for  a  continuous  residentiary  castle  of  the  Savoyards. 

(c)  For  Sermorens  the  case  is  very  strong ;  but  one  must  mention 
three  deductions.  No  definite  domains  of  Theobald  and  his  kin  are 
mentioned,  which  Whitehands  and  his  sons  can  be  shown  to  have  had. 
We  must  also  deduct  the  later  acquisitions  in  Sermorens  and  the  Viennois, 
summarized  on  pp.  78-83  above,  when  we  try  to  estimate  Whitehands' 
territory ;  a  fact  which  slightly  alters  its  centre  of  gravity  from  the 
direction  of  the  Viennois  and  Sermorens  in  favour  of  Belley.  Lastly, 
there  is  the  statement  that  Theobald,  who,  although  he  has  entered  the 
Church,  appears  as  his  father's  heir,  makes  King  Conrad  his  own  heir, 
even  if  the  intention  is  frustrated  by  the  latter's  deaths  Would  he 
have  done  this  with  a  favoured  brother,  or  at  least  that  brother's  son 
living  (on  whom  he  had  conferred  so  much  Church  property)  ? 

^  See  authority  cited,  p.  83,  n.  i. 

^  Manteyer,  Notes  additionnelles,  p.  276. 

*  "  Accepta  vero  facultate  ordinandarum  rerum  suarum,  patre  jam  mortuo, 
matreque  defuncta,  plura  pauperibus  largitus  est  et  servis  aliquanta,  ex  quibus 
multos  ingenuos  fecit ;  aliosque  cum  fundis  multis  Regi  avunculo  post  mortem 
reservavit,  quam  etiam  Rex  videre  non  potuit."  Life,  see  Manteyer,  Notes  ad- 
ditionnelles, p.  266. 


De  Manteyer's  scheme  119 

(iv)  This  is  sound,  but  yet  Theobald  had  been  appointed  largely 
by  court-favour ;  and  we  know  the  Anselmid  Burchard  possessed  this 
to  an  eminent  degree.  Besides  Whitehands  was  a  local  noble  in  any 
case  and  would  not  fail  to  have  a  share  in  Burchard's  promotion. 

(v)  That  Whitehands  was  advocate  of  the  chapter  and  Abbeys  of 
Vienna  seems  clear,  and  also  that  he  had  inherited  ecclesiastical  in 
co7n)nendams  of  which  Car.  Reg.  xxiv.  (above,  p.  46)  is  an  example  : 
but  does  the  term  antecessor  with  regard  to  the  advocacies  mean  his 
ancestor  in  the  modern  sense?  They  were  permanent  offices,  and 
Whitehands  might  be  referring  to  his  predecessor  merely,  not  his 
father.  In  that  case  the  great  load  of  favours  received  from  Theobald 
is  somewhat  diminished.  Then  the  30  years'  limitation  as  to  quarrels 
over  land  ought  to  refer  chiefly  to  the  interval  since  the  former  oath  of 
the  same  kind  at  Anse  in  994-5,  and  while  it  shows  that  Whitehands 
had  probably  succeeded  his  father  by  then^,  it  surely  casts  no  light  on 
what  lands  had  been  lost.  Ulric's  appointment  seems  specially  unlikely 
to  be  a  grievance,  as  the  advocacy  of  the  archbishopric  was  clearly  then 
not  hereditary,  and  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  the  Anselmids 
and  Humbertines  worked  hand  in  glove  together. 

(vi)  This  last  point  retains  all  its  force,  whether  we  accept  M.  de 
Manteyer's  views  as  to  enfeoffment  from  episcopal  kinsmen  (for  which 
see  above.  Section  iv.)  or  not. 

To  sum  up,  M.  de  Manteyer's  evidence  seems  to  me  to  point  to  the 
fact  that  Archbishop  Theobald  was  the  last  male  of  his  house.  Else 
why  should  he  make  King  Conrad  his  heir?  That  Hugh  and  probably 
Hucbert-Hubert  had  domains  in  the  south  Viennois  and  Sermorens 
seems  clear,  and  also  that  their  county  was  near ;  but  the  Count  Hum- 
bert of  the  Mions  neighbourhood  makes  one  think  of  Charles-Constan- 
tine's  son  Hubert,  for  the  Bosonids  were  propertied  near  St  Symphorien 
d'Ozon.  Perhaps  he  too  was  the  last  male  of  his  house.  Count  Ama- 
deus  can  hardly  have  been  Amadeus  of  Mosezzo,  for  the  latter  was  not 
a  count  to  all  appearance.  Nothing  however  prevents  the  two  former 
having  left  female  representatives.  The  name  of  Theoberga,  Count 
Hugh's  mother,  is  repeated  in  that  of  Charles-Constantine's  wife  and  in 
that  of  the  Humbertine  lady,  who  brought  Humbertine  names  into  the 
houses  of  the  Genevois  and  Faucigny.  The  Bosonid  name  of  Ermen- 
garde  appears  as  that  of  the  heiress  whom  the  Humbertine  Burchard 
married.  I  may  note,  too,  that  the  undoubted  name  of  Humbert  (not 
Hubert)  became  a  family  name  of  the  Guigonids  (later  Dauphins),  who, 
it  must  be  remembered,  possessed  the  south  of  Sermorens,  and  that 
southern  district  of  the  Viennois  called  the  county  of  Albon. 

'  The  only  argument  against  this  conclusion  is  the  fact  that  Whitehands  does  not 
subscribe  as  Count  in  Car.  Reg.  xx.  looo  (see  above,  pp.  45  and  58). 


I20        The  ancestry  of  Humbert   I   Whitehands 

Thus,  under  the  circumstances,  I  am  led  to  prefer  the  Count  Ama- 
deus  of  976  as  the  probable  father  of  Whitehands,  and  to  consider  him 
as  probably  Count  of  Belley  or  Savoy  or  both.  Perhaps  he  married,  if 
this  conjecture  is  not  too  fanciful  a  proceeding,  a  granddaughter  or 
great-granddaughter  of  Count  Hugh,  from  whom  he  would  inherit 
domains  in  Sermorens  and  possibly  in  the  Viennois,  while  a  sister  of 
his  wife  or  some  close  relation  brought  similar  domains  in  the  south 
Viennois  and  Sermorens  to  the  Guigonids^ 

Lastly,  if  we  give  any  credence  at  all  to  the  Gerard  of  Chron.  Alta- 
cumbae,  he  may  be  really  some  ancestor  of  Whitehands  in  the  male 
line. 

This  is  but  a  lame  conclusion,  but  it  rests  on  the  fact  that,  while 
M.  de  Manteyer,  Baron  Carutti  and  their  predecessors  have  shown 
ancestral  connections  of  the  Humbertines,  they  seem  to  have  gone  too 
far  in  assuming  descents  in  the  male  line  as  a  consequence.  As  they 
stand  each  scheme  we  have  examined  raises  great  difficulties  and  rests 
on  the  scantiest  evidence.  If  only  some  charter  would  give  the  names 
of  Whitehands'  father  and  mother  we  should  be  in  a  very  different 
position. 

Section  VI.    The  sons  of  Humbert  Whitehands. 

This  section  must  needs  be  somewhat  otiose  and  recapitulatory,  but 
it  seems  advisable  to  put  together  the  Burgundian  history  of  the  Hum- 
bertines  for  the  twelve  years   or  so   after  Whitehands'  death  before 

^  These  suggestions  of  course  are  merely  speculative.  The  securer  facts  seem  to 
me  to  be  that  Whitehands  was  connected  with  Count  Amadeus,  with  Archbishop 
Theobald,  with  the  Jurane  royal  house  and  perhaps  with  the  Bosonids.  For  chrono- 
logy, we  may  put  Whitehands'  mother  at  20  in  975,  when  he  was  probably  born. 
Thus  she  would  be  born  in  955.  This  is  late  for  a  daughter  of  Charles-Constantine 
(Count  in  927),  but  would  do  for  a  daughter  of  his  son  Hubert  (?  the  Count  Humbert 
of  957-74,  976).     Thus  we  might  have  : 

Gamier  =  Theoberga 

1 ' n 

Richard  pi       Hugh  =  Willa 


(?) 


1 1 1 

Chas.  Const.  =  Theoberga  Gamier  Hucbert-Hubert  Theobald 

1 ' 1  Count  (967-87)  Archbp 

Richard  Hubert,  960  t  looi 

958,  960  Humbert,  957-74,  977 

daughter  =  Amadeus 
Count  977 

This  leaves  the  Guigonids  to  descend  by  females  from  Hucbert-Hubert,  Hubert- 
Humbert  or  Richard.  The  possession  of  Octavion  by  Count  Hugh  (above,  p.  115) 
seems  to  me  strong  evidence  for  the  Guigonids'  (Dauphins')  descent  from  him,  since 
they  possessed  later  this  very  land. 


Amadeus   I  121 

proceeding  to  narrate  the  manner  in  which  they  acquired  their  first  truly 
Italian  possessions. 

To  begin  with  the  eldest  son,  Amadeus  I^  we  find  him  in  1030 
promoted  to  the  rank  of  Count ;  to  all  appearance  by  cession  from  his 
father,  for  the  latter  acts  as  joint  donor  in  the  gift  to  Cluny,  which  he 
would  hardly  do  had  Amadeus'  position  been  quite  independent".  We 
find  him  married  by  1030  to  Adela  or  Adalegilda.  He  has  two  sons 
and  in  all  probability  a  daughter.  The  sons  are  :  Humbert,  who  died 
before  his  parents ;  and  Aymon,  who  appears  as  Bishop  of  Belley 
c.  1032 ^  As  to  the  daughter,  Signor  L.  C.  BoUea  has  pointed  out* 
that  the  names  Amadeus,  Aymon  and  Burchard  are  met  with  in  the 
families  of  the  Counts  of  the  Genevois  and  the  Sires  de  Faucigny,  after 
a  Theoberga  had  married,  first  Louis,  Sire  de  Faucigny,  and  secondly 
Ceroid  II,  Count  of  the  Genevois.  Thus  it  becomes  very  likely  she 
was  a  Humbertine.  To  this  M.  de  Manteyer^  adds,  that  she  must 
have  been  a  daughter  of  Amadeus  I,  since  her  children  died  off  about 
1 1 25,  which  would  place  her  own  death  about  1090  or  1095,  ^00  ^^te  a 
date  for  a  daughter  of  Whitehands.  The  children  of  Marquess  Oddo, 
the  other  eligible  parent,  are  well  known  and  she  is  not  among  them. 

Amadeus  I's  county  at  first  seems  to  have  been  Savoy,  since  we  find 
Whitehands  acting  as  Count  of  Belley  to  all  appearance  after  1030®. 
Later  Amadeus  takes  the  title  of  Count  of  Belley'',  and  implies  he  is 
Count  of  Savoy ^  We  may  presume  he  outlived  his  father,  and  suc- 
ceeded to  all  the  Burgundian  counties  of  his  family,  for  we  find  the 
Savoyards  giving  appanages  to  the  cadets,  but  never  sharing  the  Count- 
ships  of  the  House  for  two  centuries  at  least.  For  the  rest,  he  held 
lands  in  lease  of  the  see  of  Belley®,  and  was  considered  as  the  founder 
of  the  Cluniac  Priory  of  Le  Bourget^". 

Finally,  the  Chroniques  give  two  statements  about  him.  The  first 
is  that  he  was  summoned  by  the  Emperor  Henry  H,  who  succeeded 
Otto  HI,  to  attend  his  coronation  at  Rome,  that  he  joined  Henry  at 
Verona  and  stayed  the  winter  with  him  there,  and  then  after  being 
present  at  the  imperial  coronation  returned  to  Susa,  and  Maurienne. 

^  Cliarters  relating  to  him  are  :  Car.  Reg.   Lll.  LXXIII.  LX.  LXI.  Lxxix.  LXXli. 
CXX.  CXXIII.  CXXV.  CXXXV.  CXXXVIII.   LXXXI.  LXXIV.  CXLI.  CL. 
^  Car.  Reg.  LXXix.  (above,  pp.  49  and  60). 

•'  Car.  Reg.  LXXii.  Cluny,  iv.  2885,  p.  79  ;  see  above,  pp.  51,  61. 
■•  Le  prime  relazioni  fra  la  casa  di  Savoia  e  Ginevra,  pp.  14-15. 
^  Notes  additionnelles,  pp.  440-1. 
*  Car.  Reg.  LXXn.,  see  above,  pp.  51  and  61. 
^  Car.  Reg.  cxxxvni.,  see  above,  pp.  55  and  64. 
"  Car.  Reg.  Lxxxi.,  see  above,  pp.  55  and  64. 
^  Car.  Reg.  CXLI.,  see  above,  pp.  56  and  64. 
^•^  Car.  Reg.  CL.,  see  above,  pp.  57  and  65. 


122  The  sons  of  Humbert  Whitehands 

They  add  that  Amadeus  acquired  the  surname  Cauda,  by  reason  of  the 
large  queue  of  vassals  he  insisted  on  bringing  into  the  council-chamber 
at  Veronal  As  to  this  story,  there  is  no  reason  why  Amadeus  I  should 
not  have  attended  Henry  Ill's  (not  Henry  IPs)  coronation  at  Rome  on 
Christmas  Day  1046 -.  The  queue  portion  of  the  tale  is  a  ridiculous 
explanation  of  a  nickname,  which  was  hardly  flattering. 

The  second  statement  of  the  Chroniques  is  that  he  died  in  1076  and 
was  buried  next  his  father  in  the  cathedral  of  St  Jean  de  Maurienne^ 
The  latter  piece  of  information  is  probably  true  ;  there  would  be  church- 
ceremonies  going  on  to  keep  up  the  tradition.  But  1076  is  an  impossible 
date.  Fortunately,  there  are  indices  which  enable  us  to  get  nearer  to  the 
right  year,  (i)  Bishop  Aymon  of  Belley  outlived  his  father  (Car.  Reg. 
CXLI.,  see  above,  p.  56) ;  (ii)  Marquess  Oddo  (ob.  1060)  outlived  Bishop 
Aymon  (Guigue,  Petit  Cartul.  de  St  Sulpice-en-Bugey,  p.  27,  see  above, 
p.  56).  Thus  Amadeus  died  well  before  1060.  But  Padre  Savio''  has 
pointed  out  that  (iii)  Marquess  Oddo  was  striking  money  and  therefore 
ruling  in  Maurienne  well  within  the  reign  of  Pope  Leo  IX,  who  died  on 
the  19th  April  1054.  We  can  hardly  therefore  put  Marquess  Oddo's 
succession  and  consequently  Count  Amadeus'  death  later  than  1052, 
and  this  makes  one  suspect  that  Oddo  was  already  ruling  in  the  Bur- 
gundian  domains  in  the  spring  of  105 1,  when  he  made  his  grant  to  the 
Tarentaise  chapter ^ 

With  regard  to  Bishop  Aymon  of  Belley,  we  have  seen  he  outlived 
his  father,  but  died  before  his  uncle  Oddo.  His  successor  in  the  see 
was  Bishop  Josserand''.  We  have  also  seen  that  he  is  an  instance  of  a 
boy-bishop''. 

The  earlier  days  of  Burchard  III,  Bishop  of  Aosta,  and  Archbishop 
of  Lyons,  have  been  sufficiently  narrated  in  Section  11.  By  1057^  with 
his  youthful  escapades  long  past,  he  had  succeeded  his  brother  Bishop 
Aymon  of  Sion  as  Abbot  of  St  Maurice.  Lastly,  if  Car.  Reg.  cxLiv. 
and  CLXViii.  really  belong  to  him  and  not  to  some  other  Burchard,  he 
survived  all  the  other  sons  of  Whitehands  to  January  1069^.     Next  year 

1  M.H.P.  Script.  II.  95-6,  Misc.  di  star.  ilal.  xxii.  p.  307,  Car.  Reg.  cxxxiv. 
^  M.G.H.  Script,  v.  (Herm.  Aug.),  p.  126.     There  is  no  mention  of  a  sojourn  at 
Verona. 

■'  M.H.P.  Script.  II.  96,  Misc.  di  star.  ital.  xxil.  pp.  307-8,  Car.  Reg.  cxxxix. 

*  I primi  conti  di  Savoia,  pp.  462-3. 

^  Car.  Reg.  cxLili.,  see  above,  pp.  55  and  64. 

^  Guigue,  Petit  Cartul.  de  St  Sulpice-en-Bugey,  p.  27,  see  above,  p.  56. 
''  See  above,  p.  71.     The  references  for  him  are :    Car.  Reg.   Lxxii.  Cluny,  iv. 
2885,  2884,  Car.  Reg.  cxiii.  cxli. 

*  See  above,  pp.  57,  64,  72-3,  and  92. 

^  The  only  reason  against  this  identification  is  removed  by  the  correct  dating  of 
Car.  Reg.  cxix.  (see  above,  pp.  64,  n.  2,  and  73,  n.  i).     Baron  Carutti  and  Signor 


Burchard,  Aymon  and  Oddo  123 

Countess  Adelaide  was  certainly  ruling  the  lands  of  the  Abbey,  and  no 
more  Abbots  appear  till  the  days  of  Amadeus  III.  He  died  on  the 
loth  June  of  an  unknown  year  after  1046.  It  may  have  been 
Burchard's  death  or  some  cession  during  his  life  which  handed  over 
the  important  territory  of  St  Maurice  to  the  Humbertines'. 

Aymon'  Bishop  of  Sion  has  also  been  dealt  with  above ^  He  was 
Provost  of  St  Maurice  in  1046.  M.  de  Manteyer*  looks  on  the  refe- 
rence to  him  as  Abbot  of  St  Maurice  as  a  result  of  a  mistranscription 
in  a  late  chartulary.  But  the  description  is  repeated  in  precise  but 
different  terms,  viz.  "Aimone  Sedunensi,  qui  nunc  eidem  (S.  Mauricii) 
praeest  ecclesie"  and  "monasterium  Agauni  in  quo  ipse  Aimo  sub 
canonicorum  regula  Abbas  esse  dignoscitur^";  and  I  do  not  think  we 
can  doubt  its  accuracy.  He  was  buried  on  the  13th  July  1054*'.  As 
we  have  seen,  the  claim  of  the  Counts  of  Savoy  to  invest  the  Bishops 
of  Sion  with  the  regalia  may  date  back  to  some  occurrence  during  his 
tenure  of  office''. 

Fourth  of  the  sons  of  Whitehands  and  Auchilia  was  Oddo.  By  his 
marriage  with  the  heiress  Countess  Adelaide,  he  obtained  the  Mark  of 
Turin.  On  the  death  of  his  brother  Amadeus  I,  he  succeeded  to  the 
Burgundian  counties.  Besides  the  charter*  which  shows  him  pos- 
sessed of  land  in  Tarentaise  in  105 1,  we  have  evidence  of  his  rule  in 
Belley  and  Maurienne.  With  regard  to  the  former  a  certain  Aymon 
had  seized  on  the  forest  of  Rothone  which  belonged  to  the  Bishop 
and  canons  of  Belley.  By  threats  of  an  armed  attack  Bishop  Josse- 
rand  and  his  canons  forced  him  to  restore  it.  They  also  paid  him  40 
solidi  and  60  soldatae  and  granted  to  him  and  one  of  his  sons  the 
pannage  or  pig-feeding  he  had  in  demesne  there.  This  transaction, 
which  so  curiously  illustrates  feudal  life  and  economics,  was  carried 
through  in  the  presence  of  Marquess   Oddo^     As  to  Maurienne,  it 

Labruzzi  place  Burchard  Ill's  death  in  1046,  but  this  is  owing  to  an  inaccurate  version 
of  the  Obituary  of  Lyons  given  by  Gingins.  (See  Manteyer,  Origines,  p.  472,  and 
Car.  Reg.  cxxx.)  The  true  text  of  the  obit  runs,  *' Junii  iiii.  Idus  obierunt  Odolricus 
archiepiscopus  sanctae  et  felicis  memoriae... Et  Walterius  acolytus.  Et  Brocardus 
archiepiscopus.  Et  Anno."  Guigue,  Ohituarium  Lugdnnensis  Ecclesiae,  p.  52. 
We  know  Archbishop  Ulric  died  in  ro46.  The  years  of  the  other  obits  are  probably 
subsequent  to  that. 

'  Cf.  above,  pp.  92,  94. 

^  For  references  to  him,  see  p.  29,  n.  3. 

•'  See  above,  p.  29.  **  Origines,  p.  527. 

5  Car.  Keg.  CXLli.  (M.H.P.  Chart.  11.  148). 

*  Car.   Jieg.    CXLVIII.   M.D.R.    xviil.    p.   276.     Savio,  I  primi  coiiti,   p.  464. 
Manteyer,  Origines,  p.  528. 

'  See  above,  pp.  93-4.  **  Car.  Reg.  CXLIII. 

*  Guigue,  Petit  Cartul.  de  St  Sulpice-en-Bugey,  p.  27.     Sylva  Rotona  is  the  Foret 
de  Rothone:  see  Renaux,  Le  Comt^  Humbertien  de  Savoie-Belley,  p.  52. 


124  The  sons  of  Humbert  Whitehands 

seems  that  the  Archbishops  of  Vienna  had  the  sole  right  of  coining  in 
their  province \  Now  we  are  told  that  in  Marquess  Oddo's  time,  and 
well  before  the  19th  April  1054,  certain  coiners  infringed  this  privilege 
by  coining  at  Aiguebelle  in  the  suffragan  diocese  of  Maurienne.  The 
Marquess  forbade  it — he  had  been  ignorant  of  it,  the  document  says — 
and  Pope  Leo  IX  excommunicated  the  chief  coiner.  The  coining 
thereon  stopped  during  Oddo's  life,  and  the  wicked  coiner  was  later 
struck  with  paralysis^. 

For  Oddo's  children,  I  must  refer  to  the  next  chapter.  He  himself 
appears  as  dead  on  the  21st  May  1060^,  to  give  place  to  a  less  shadowy 
generation. 

^  Cf.  Poupardin,  Boitrgogne,  p.  318,  n.  2.  See  for  the  authorities  on  this  incident, 
above,  p.  98,  n.  2. 

^  Car.  Reg.  CLXXiii.  Migne,  CXLiii.  1407-8,  "  Longa  post  tempora  stetit  ipsa 
moneta  bona  in  pondere  et  in  mensura  decena.  Nuper  autem  tempore  Odonis 
marchionis  viri  sui  (Adalaidis)  latrones  et  falsarii  in  burgo  qui  dicitur  Aquabella 
corruperunt  earn  et  confunderunt  et  falsaverunt,  ignorante  supradicto  marchione.  Qui 
statim  ut  audivit  clamorem  supradicti  archiepiscopi  (Leodegarii)  Viennensis,  praecepit 
ne  amplius  fieret.  Neque  factum  est  eo  vivente...Tamen  ut  omnibus  notum  fiat, 
trapezita  a  domno  Leone  papa  excommunicatus,  paralysi  percussus,  membris  omnibus 
dissolutus,  impiam  vitam  digna  morte  finivit."  I  gather  that  the  paralysis  of  the 
coiner  only  occurred  after  Oddo's  death. 

^  Car.  Reg.  CLVI.  The  burial  of  a  Marquess  Oddo  on  the  19th  Jan.  given  by  the 
obituary  of  St  Andrea  of  Turin  (Car.  Reg.  CLV.  Cipolla,  Monumenta  Novaliciensia,  I. 
317)  will  hardly  refer  to  this  Oddo,  as  in  the  Necrology  of  Novalesa  (Cipolla,  op.  cit. 
I.  291)  it  is  stated  on  the  same  date  that  the  defunct  Marquess  Oddo  gave  to  Novalesa 
Pollenzo,  and  this  was  given  by  an  elder  Oddo  (Cipolla,  op.  cit.  il.  269)  before  998. 
(Cf.  Manteyer,  Origines,  p.  412,  n.  i.) 


CHAPTER   II 

THE    COUNTESS   ADELAIDE   OF     TURIN 

Section  I.    North  Italy  under  the  Ottos. 

Like  Burgundy,  the  kingdom  of  Italy,  that  is  the  part  of  the  penin- 
sula north  of  Benevento,  had  shared  in  the  general  ruin  of  the  Western 
Empire  of  Charlemagne.  It,  too,  suffered  from  the  decay  of  the  state, 
from  Saracen,  Hungarian  and  Norman  ravagings  and  from  the  anarchy 
of  rising  feudalism.  Several  circumstances,  however,  made  Italy's  con- 
dition vary  greatly  in  numerous  characters  from  that  of  Burgundy  and 
France.  The  posture  of  affairs  in  the  two  latter  was  simpler.  The 
state  had  yielded  to  the  predominance  of  private  landed  lordship.  But 
the  protagonists  of  the  centrifugal  cause  were  the  local  counts,  them- 
selves the  local  depositaries  of  the  powers  of  the  state.  We  find  these 
dynasts  striving  successfully  on  the  whole  in  two  directions.  First, 
they  throw  off  the  control  of  the  central  power.  Secondly,  they  en- 
deavour to  maintain  the  public  powers,  vested  in  or  usurped  by  them, 
over  the  lesser  tenants-in-chivalry  in  their  counties. 

But  Italy's  conditions  were  far  more  complex.  The  land  became 
anarchic,  it  is  true ;  but  the  greater  public  officials,  the  Counts,  did  not 
so  entirely  profit  by  the  fact.  For  one  thing  the  frequent  conquests 
and  revolutions  between  770  and  960  gave  the  generality  of  comital 
dynasties  little  opportunity  to  take  root  in  their  districts.  Then  the 
strength  of  the  Bishops  did  not  rest  only  on  their  domains  and  their 
moral  influence,  but  on  their  traditional  leadership  of  the  Roman  ele- 
ment and  on  their  consequent  power  in  the  cities.  The  latter  had 
never  lost  entirely  their  ancient  civic  instincts,  and,  while  a  curious 
mixture  of  growing  trade  and  of  the  devastation  of  the  countryside  by 
the  new  barbaric  marauders  increased  their  power,  they  were  not  likely 
to  submit  altogether  tamely  to  the  weakened  counts.  The  lesser  nobles 
of  the  countryside  were  as  often  as  not  their  citizens  and  allies,  and 


126  North   Italy  under  the  Ottos 

thus  the  counts  were  still  more  held  in  check.  Lastly,  those  counts 
who  were  successful  over  all  these  obstacles  were  possessors  of  many 
counties  and  of  exceptional  power.  We  may  call  them  by  the  title 
they  preferred  of  Marquesses.  They,  it  was,  who  after  888  competed 
for  the  crown,  and  their  strength  in  their  patrimonial  domains  helped 
to  prevent  the  kingship  from  becoming  quite  a  nullity.  There  were 
Berengar  I  of  Friuli,  and  Guy  of  Spoleto,  the  first  two  rivals  for  the 
kingship  after  Charles  the  Fat's  deposition.  The  transient  foreigners, 
Lewis  the  Blind  of  Provence  and  Rudolf  II  of  Jurane  Burgundy,  did 
not  reign  long  enough  to  have  much  influence  on  events ;  and  King 
Hugh,  although  like  them  a  foreigner,  was  not  quite  an  exception,  for 
his  Provencal  domains  must  have  increased  his  strength  in  Italy,  which 
was  real  enough.  With  Berengar  II  of  Ivrea,  we  find  again  a  king 
whose  local  influence  and  patrimonial  Mark  were  factors  in  maintaining 
his  authority. 

In  consequence,  it  was  not  a  wholly  debilitated  kingship  that  Otto 
the  Great  acquired  from  Berengar  II  in  961;  and  to  it  he  added  an 
enormous  increment  of  strength  owing  to  his  Transalpine  realm.  The 
German  King  and  his  army  were  irresistible  when  present.  But  peace 
and  order  and  obedience  during  his  absence  were  to  be  provided  for ; 
and  a  fairly  definite  scheme  seems  to  have  been  evolved  by  him  to 
maintain  the  union  of  Italy  and  Germany,  and  to  impart  a  lasting  cha- 
racter to  his  refounded  Roman  Empire.  It  was  in  point  of  fact  an  easy 
development  from  the  course  of  events  in  the  first  half  of  the  tenth 
century.  Various  degrees  of  immunity  for  the  episcopal  lands  were 
exceedingly  common.  And  amid  the  disasters  of  the  time  and  the 
wreck  of  the  comital  power  in  many  districts,  the  Bishops  had  frequently 
appeared  as  the  secular  heads  of  their  cities,  and  this  position  had  been 
sometimes  granted,  sometimes,  perhaps,  only  confirmed  by  the  Italian 
kings.  Public  powers,  more  or  less  complete,  carrying  with  them  a 
corresponding  decrease  of  the  Counts'  functions,  were  granted  to 
favoured,  or  powerful  prelates  in  their  cathedral  cities.  It  was  not  too 
often  done,  it  may  be,  but  it  shows  the  steady  advance  of  the  episcopate 
in  actual  power.  On  the  other  hand  about  the  year  950  new  comital 
families  appear  in  the  north,  who  bid  fair,  if  they  could  take  root,  to 
work  strongly  against  the  new  disintegrating  tendency,  and  in  favour  of 
the  maintenance  of  larger  governmental  units. 

Both  these  classes  the  Emperor  Otto  was  inclined  to  support,  for  he 
owed  to  both  some  part  of  his  success ;  but  naturally  the  Bishops  were 
his  favourites.  To  exalt  them  coincided  with  his  German  policy.  He 
could  appoint  and  so  control  them.  They  were  of  use  in  a  civilizing 
administration.  They  possessed  a  moral  influence.  He  therefore  con- 
tinued and  enlarged  the  policy  of  granting  certain  among  them  the  rule 


Bishops  and   Marquesses  127 

of  their  cities  and  of  a  defined  circuit  round  the  latter.  In  fact  the 
cities  in  question  were  excised  from  the  county  in  which  they  were 
situated,  and  the  Bishop  performed  the  comital  functions  in  them. 
Thus,  for  instance,  we  find  Brunengo,  Bishop  of  Asti,  in  969  ruling  his 
city  and  a  circuit  of  four  miles  round  it,  as  well  as  the  episcopium  or 
lands  of  his  see,  to  the  complete  exclusion  of  any  count.  He  was 
count  in  these  territories  in  all  but  name. 

On  the  other  hand  Otto  recognized  the  new  comital  families.  Be- 
sides the  great  Marquesses  of  Spoleto  and  Tuscany  in  the  south,  who 
had  under  them  subordinate  counts  and  occupied  a  special  position  like 
the  German  Dukes,  there  were  five  marchional  families  in  the  north, 
who  much  transcended  the  remaining  counts  in  prestige  and  power. 
These  were  the  Anscarids,  Marquesses  of  Ivrea,  the  late  reigning  house 
of  Italy ;  the  Ardoinids,  Marquesses  of  Turin,  who  form  the  subject  of 
the  two  next  sections  of  this  chapter;  the  Aleramids,  Marquesses  of 
Savona ;  the  Canossans,  Marquesses  of  Modena  and  Reggio ;  and  the 
Otbertines,  Marquesses  of  Genoa.  All  these  the  Emperor  seems  to 
have  determined  to  keep  in  power,  but  without  slackening  in  his  bishop- 
favouring  policy. 

In  this  sketch  there  is  no  need  to  dwell  on  Otto's  control  of  the 
Papacy  or  on  the  events  of  his  reign  and  those  of  his  two  less  capable 
successors,  or  on  all  the  various  circumstances  which  tended  to  weaken 
the  latters'  authority.  In  governmental  matters  which  could  be  formally 
recorded  a  striking  progress  was  made  in  the  grants  of  fresh  jurisdiction 
to  the  Bishops.  Thus  the  Bishop  of  Acqui  in  978  obtained  from 
Otto  II  the  jurisdiction  over  his  city  and  three  miles  round,  and  the 
Bishop  of  Asti  received  in  992  from  Otto  III  such  powers  and  profits 
throughout  both  the  diocese  and  county  of  Asti,  as  to  raise  suspicions 
whether  counts  still  existed  there,  such  few  rights  they  could  have  had^ 
And  the  two  by  no  means  stood  alone. 

More  important,  however,  for  the  future  were  the  wide  social 
changes  which  took  place  during  this  period  of  forty  years.  The  great 
gift  of  the  Saxon  Emperors  to  subject  North  Italy  was  peace.  Follow- 
ing on  the  distracting  civil  wars  and  pagan  ravages,  she  enjoyed  a 
breathing-space.  The  passes  were  reopened  in  972  to  the  West  and 
North.  The  half-deserted  countryside  could  once  more  be  cultivated. 
A  kind  of  recolonization  went  on  over  long  vacant  champaigns.  Mean- 
while the  cities  grew  and  prospered.  Once  more  the  long  caravans 
could  go  trailing  over  the  Alps,  and  ship  and  barge  plied  in  the  ports 
and  on  the  rivers.  There  was  a  stir  and  cheerful  dawn,  as  the  long 
night  of  the  barbaric  years  began  finally  to  yield,  and  the  New  Age, 

1  See  below,  pp.  163-4. 


128  North   Italy  under  the  Ottos 

that  men  mistook  for  the  Past  impossibly  returning,  began  its  tardy 
reign. 

Three  tendencies  of  the  Ottonian  Peace  have  a  direct  bearing  on 
the  present  theme.  The  first  of  these  was  the  prevalence  of  the  Italian 
habit  of  succession  over  the  strict  law  of  office  and  benefice.  By  rigid 
law,  now  that  the  latter  had  become  hereditary,  they  should  have  led  to 
something  like  primogeniture  :  or  at  least  each  office  or  benefice  should 
have  had  its  single  holder.  But  the  Italian  custom  was  for  all  sons  to 
enjoy  their  father's  inheritance  in  compossession.  As  a  result  there  was 
a  conflict  of  the  two  principles.  With  regard  to  sub-vassals  and  minor 
vassals  it  is  easy  to  see  that  the  native  custom  should  prevail.  But  as 
to  the  greatest  famiUes,  such  as  the  marchional  ones,  there  was  more 
doubt.  Family  ambition  or  imperial  pressure  might  lead  to  primo- 
geniture or  some  middle  course.  And  as  a  matter  of  fact  we  find  their 
practice  various.  The  Canossans  established  strict  primogeniture :  the 
Otbertines  and  the  Aleramids  used  either  compossession  or  equal  sub- 
division. So  that  by  the  year  looo  the  difference  of  power  between  the 
different  Marquesses  is  becoming  considerable. 

Another  fact  was  the  remarkable  multiplication  of  all  the  noble  or 
knightly  classes.  Of  these  Xhe.  principes,  that  is  those  landholders,  who 
held  directly  from  the  King,  and  the  wealthier  after-vassals,  the  greater 
nobility  in  fact,  tended  to  have  identical  interests  with  the  Marquesses 
and  Counts,  especially  where  compossession  or  subdivision  began  to 
put  the  latter  on  an  equality  with  them.  As  happened  in  the  case  of 
these  leaders  of  their  class,  their  benefices  were  become  hereditary.  But 
the  sub-vassals  in  general,  mainly  at  three  removes  from  the  King,  the 
secundi  milites  or  valvassors,  a  class  which  had  not  yet  obtained  such 
hereditary  rights  to  their  benefices,  began  to  resent  their  dependence  on 
their  lords,  and  their  increasing  numbers  and  their  increasing  security 
and  wealth  made  them  ready  and  able  to  assert  their  claims  and  take 
common  action. 

Connected  with  the  increase  in  number  of  the  nobles,  and  still  more 
important  for  the  future  of  Italy  was  the  growth  in  power  and  self- 
consciousness  of  the  cities.  The  times  of  anarchy  had  increased  the 
number  of  nobles  resident  for  all  or  part  of  the  year  in  them,  and 
common  interests  and  the  necessities  of  common  life  had  done  some- 
thing to  break  down  any  absolute  barrier  between  the  knightly  and 
the  mercantile  class.  Germanic  kinship  came  to  strengthen  Roman 
neighbourliness.  Perhaps  some  nobles  had  even  begun  to  engage  in 
commerce  themselves,  now  that  the  peace  gave  greater  and  greater 
scope  for  the  movement  of  trade.  We  find  Otto  III  in  992  allowing 
the  Astigians  to  trade  wherever  they  would  in  the  Empire.  But  now 
a  change  takes  place  in  the  attitude  of  the  citizens  to  their  governors, 


The  Marquesses  of  Turin  129 

especially  to  such  Bishops  as  had  the  rule  of  them.  They  began  to 
wish  to  shake  off  their  subjection  and  to  take  over  themselves  some  at 
any  rate  of  the  attributes  of  the  public  power.  Thus  we  find  the 
Cremonese  in  996  obtaining  from  Otto  III  a  soon-quashed  diploma 
which  granted  them  collectively  public  rights  which  belonged  to  their 
Bishop. 

This  slight  sketch  of  some  of  the  main  lines  of  internal  progress  in 
North  Italy  will  serve  as  a  prologue  to  the  history  of  the  Ardoinids  of 
Turin,  which  occupies  the  following  sections  of  the  present  chapter.  It 
will  be  seen  subsequently  that  those  great  Marquesses  were  somewhat 
exceptionally  placed.  They  were  on  the  frontier.  Episcopal  immunity 
and  even  civic  trade  had  made  comparatively  little  progress  in  their 
dominions.  In  consequence  there  is  a  certain  backwardness  in  their 
development,  a  backwardness  which  implied  their  greater  strength. 

This  premised,  I  may  leave  aside  the  general  prospects  of  Italy  and 
the  imperial  dreams  of  Otto  III,  that  monarchy  which  was  the  Legend 
of  the  Roman  Empire,  and  turn  to  the  hard,  but  more  successful  practi- 
caUties  of  my  local  history  ^ 


Section  II.    The  rise  of  the  Ardoinids  of  Turin. 

This  division  of  my  subject  embraces  the  history  of  the  Ardoinid 
Marquesses  of  Turin  and  of  their  heiress,  Countess  Adelaide,  through 
whom  the  House  of  Savoy  acquired  their  first  strictly  Italian  domains — - 
for  Aosta  was  Burgundian — and  what  was  more  important  their  claims 
to  Italian  territory  and   a  determining  motive  for  their  later  policy". 

^  The  material  of  this  section  is  chiefly  derived  from  Pivano,  Stato  e  Chiesa  (888- 
1015).  Three  studies  of  Count  Cipolla  give  a  clear  notion  of  the  progress  of  the 
Bishop's  power  in  the  county  of  Asti :  Di  Aiidace  Vescovo  d\4sti.  Misc.  stor.  ital. 
XXVII.  {2.  XII.) ;  Di  Briuiengo,  do.  Misc.  stor.  ital.  xxviii.  (2.  xiii.) ;  Di  Rozone,  do. 
{Mem.  Accad.  Scienze  Torino,  2.  XLii.  (1892)). 

'^  A  work  by  a  Piedmontese  historian  will  deal  with  this  period.  Professor 
Gabotto,  whose  mastery  of  the  sources  for  Piedmontese  history  is  undisputed,  has 
commenced  to  publish  a  history  of  the  Subalpine  land,  which  will  no  doubt  be  indis- 
pensable. As  it  is,  my  obligations  are  chiefly  due  to  Bresslau,  to  Baron  Carutti,  and 
to  a  younger  contemporai-y  of  Muratori,  G.  B.  Terraneo,  whose  placid  sagacity  and 
sense  of  what  was  likely,  so  characteristic  of  his  time,  first  placed  West  Piedmontese 
history  on  a  scientific  basis,  destroying  antiquarian  fables  and  reconstructing  the 
probable  course  of  events  from  our  fragmentary  materials.  To  these  three  guides  I 
ought  to  add  Desimoni,  who  brought  into  clear  light  the  tangled  subject  of  succession 
and  the  extraordinary  multiplication  and  diramation  of  the  great  families,  so  few  in 
number,  which  predominated   in   North   Italy  in   the  tenth,  eleventh,  and  twelfth 

P.  O.  Q 


130  The  rise  of  the  Ardoinids  of  Turin 

The  present  section  will  deal  with  the  foundation  of  the  Mark  of  Turin 
by  the  Ardoinids  and  of  its  character  and  extent.  With  the  discussion 
of  these  points  will  be  linked  the  little  we  know  of  the  biography  of  the 
earlier  generations  of  the  house  during  the  tenth  century. 

The  land,  with  which  we  are  now  concerned  on  the  eastern  side  of 
the  Alps,  consists  roughly  of  a  great  central  plain,  with  a  fringe  of  steep 
and  narrow  Alpine  valleys.  In  its  centre  lies  the  green  hill-country  of 
Montferrat,  looking  curiously  like  a  ruffled  sea,  and  if  we  take  a  bird's- 
eye  view  from  it,  we  see  the  Po  and  its  tributaries  spread  out  to  north, 
south  and  west,  like  the  sticks  of  a  fan  and  ending  each  in  a  mountain 
gorge.  One  of  the  latter,  due  west  of  us,  is  wider  and  more  open  than 
the  others  and  at  its  mouth  stands  a  conical  hill  surmounted  by  a  lofty 
monastery :  it  is  the  famous  Val  di  Susa  leading  to  the  Mont  Cenis 
Pass.  The  land  below  seems  to  north  and  west  an  even  plain,  bounded 
by  the  wall-like  Alps.  To  the  south-west  there  rise  the  projecting  spurs 
of  the  Ligurian  Alps,  the  Langhe  south  of  the  river  Tanaro.  Natural 
divisions  for  the  sweep  of  champaign  between  the  Tanaro  and  the  river 
Dora  Baltea  leading  into  the  Val  d'Aosta,  there  are  none  save  the  rivers  ; 
and  in  consequence  the  bounds  of  the  ancient  Roman  civitates  and  of 
the  medieval  dioceses  and  counties  which  succeeded  them  lay  roughly, 
though  with  no  consistency,  along  the  river-beds.  Moving  from  the 
south,  the  river  Stura  di  Demonte  in  1000  a.d.  separated  Bredolo  county 
from  Aurade ;  small  tributaries  of  the  upper  Po  partly  formed  the  divi- 
sion between  Aurade  and  Turin  ;  the  Oreo  parted  Turin  from  Ivrea. 

The  fringe  of  valleys,  however,  is  quite  distinct  in  character  from  the 
plainland  to  which  it  is  annexed,  and  this  isolation  in  the  past  has  given 
birth  to  some  contradictions  in  Piedmontese  history.  The  plain  is 
Catholic ;  in  the  south-western  glens  dwell  the  remnant  of  the  Vaudois. 
The  plain  speaks  dialects  of  that  Gallo-Italian  which  stretches  from 
Turin   to  Ravenna.     The  ancient,   though   now  dying,  patois  of  the 

centuries.  Other  authorities  for  special  points  will  be  cited  when  they  occur.  The 
titles  of  these  hooks  are  : 

(i)  F.  Gabotto,  Storia  della  Italia  occidentale  nel  Medio  Evo  (395-1313)  in  the 
Biblioteca  della  Societa  storica  subalpina,  of  which  Libro  I  (395-568)  appeared  in 
191 1. 

(ii)  Bresslau,  Konrad  II,  Vol.  I.  Excurs.  IV.  p.  161,  Zur  Genealogie  u.  Geschichte 
der  hervorragendsten  Dynastengeschlechter  Ober-  und  Mittel-italiens  itn  w.  Jahr- 
hundert,  Erster  Abschnitt,  Das  Haus  der  Markgrafen  v.  Turin. 

(iii)  Carutti,  //  conte  Umberto  I  Biancamano  e  il  re  Ardoino,  2nd  ed.  1888, 
Bk  II.  and  App. 

(iv)  G.  B.  Terraneo,  La  principessa  Adelaide... illnstrata.,  V^ols.  I.  and  II.; 
Vol.  III.  unluckily  is  still  in  MS.  and  I  have  not  had  the  opportunity  of  con- 
sulting it. 

(v)  C.  Desimoni,  Sulk  tnarche  d' Italia  e  sulla  loro  diraviazione  in  Marchesati,  in 
Atti  della  Societa  ligura  per  la  storia  pairia,  1896,  xxvill.  (3rd  Series,  i.). 


Description  of  Piedmont  131 

valleys  are  akin  to  the  tongues  to  the  west  of  the  Alpine  ridge,  from 
Susa  northward  being  Mesorhodanic,  and  from  Oulx  southward  Pro- 
vencal'. The  distribution  of  these  languages  shows  how  strong  an 
influence  the  medieval  history  of  the  valleys  had  on  their  speech.  The 
linguistic  boundary  of  the  Val  d'Aosta  is  identical  with  the  medieval 
limits  of  Burgundy :  the  Provencal  Vaudois  settled  eti  masse  in  the 
valley  of  Fenestrelle :  of  the  Val  di  Susa,  that  part,  which  remained 
under  Savoy  in  the  twelfth  century  on  the  break-up  of  the  Turinese 
Mark,  spoke  once,  it  would  seem,  Mesorhodanic ;  but  that  part  which 
came  at  nearly  the  same  date  into  the  Dauphins'  possession  still  speaks 
Provencal  J  and  this  occurred  in  spite  of  a  partial  resettlement  of  the 
whole  valley  in  the  tenth  century  from  the  direction  of  Turin.  Yet  the 
main  reason  for  this  linguistic  phenomenon  seems  to  lie  in  geographical 
and  climatic  reasons.  The  ridge  of  the  Western  Alps  is  traversable  by 
col  after  col  and  intercommunication  between  the  inhabitants  on  either 
side  was  easy^.  The  climate,  too,  on  each  side  was  Alpine ;  and  they 
were  by  consequence  pastoral  folk  and  had  little  natural  connection  with 
the  eastern  agricultural  plain. 

Only  four  of  these  border  valleys  enjoyed  real  political  importance 
in  the  Middle  Age,  in  each  case  because  the  pass  was  practicable, 
convenient  of  approach  on  either  side,  and  therefore  much  used. 
Reckoning  from  the  south  they  were :  (i)  the  valley  of  the  Vermenagna, 
ending  at  the  Col  di  Tenda,  whence  the  road  continued  to  Ventimiglia 
and  the  Mediterranean  ;  (ii)  the  valley  of  the  Stura  di  Demonte,  whence 
the  way  led  over  the  Col  d'Argentiere  to  Provence  and  south  Dauphine; 
(iii)  the  valley  of  Fenestrelle,  the  outlet  of  which  was  in  the  furthest 
reach  of  the  neighbouring  Val  di  Susa  at  the  famous  pass  of  Mont 
Genevre  leading  both  to  Grenoble  and  Provence ;  and  (iv)  the  Val  di 
Susa  itself,  the  greatest  of  all  in  medieval  times,  with  its  two  passes,  the 
Mont  Genevre,  already  mentioned,  and  the  Mont  Cenis,  over  which  the 
usual  route  ran  down  Maurienne  to  Lyons  and  the  west.  The  future 
of  the  House  of  Savoy  really  depended  on  this  valley". 

So  far  the  counties  we  have  dealt  with,  in  what  is  now  called 
Piedmont\  differ  little  in  general  character  from  one  another,  but  east 
of  the  Tanaro  lies  a  hill-country  of  winding  valleys  and  multitudinous 
streams,  the  Langhe.     Only  the  east  of  this  district  comes  within  our 

^  See  Groeber,  Griindriss  der  romanischen  Philologie,  I.  717-18. 

-  Cf.  Coolidge,  Alps  in  Nature  and  History,  pp.  150-1. 

•'  On  the  passes,  cf.  Coolidge,  Alps  in  Nature  and  History,  pp.  160-7. 

■•  The  name  Piedmont  first  applies  to  the  district  of  Pinerolo.  About  1300  it 
became  a  general  name  for  the  Savoyard  Cisalpine  territory,  and  extended  its  applica- 
tion with  the  growth  of  Savoy.  See  Merkel,  Un  Quarto  di  Secolo  di  Vita  Cotnunale, 
p.  42. 

9—2 


132  The  rise  of  the  Ardoinids  of  Turin 

purview,  the  county  of  Alba,  whence  a  road  ran  along  the  river  Tanaro 
across  the  Ligurian  Alps  to  Porto  Maurizio  and  Albenga.  After  passing 
the  city  of  Alba  the  Tanaro  flows  between  low  hills  until  it  reaches  the 
unmitigated  Lombard  plain,  and  roughly  speaking  this  territory  forms 
the  county  of  Asti,  to  the  north  of  which  and  to  the  south  of  the  Po  lies 
the  hill-country  of  Montferrat  from  which  our  survey  is  taken. 

The  traveller  coming  up  the  Po,  say  from  Pavia,  had  really  three 
routes  which  he  might  take.  If  his  destination  was  the  Rhineland  or 
Flanders,  he  would  keep  along  the  Po  until  he  came  to  its  confluence 
with  the  Dora  Baltea.  Then  he  would  go  up  the  latter  river  to  the  city 
of  Ivrea  and  thence  into  the  Val  d'Aosta  and  over  the  Great  St  Bernard. 
But  if  he  was  bound  for  France  two  courses  were  open  to  him.  He 
might  go  up  the  Po  to  Turin  directly;  but  he  would  more  likely  strike 
off"  the  main  river  up  the  Tanaro.  This  route  brought  him  to  the  city 
of  Asti,  whence  he  could  make  his  way  past  Chieri  to  Turin,  the  starting- 
point  of  the  roads  for  the  Mont  Cenis  and  Mont  Genevre.  Asti  had  the 
immense  advantage  of  being  at  the  junction  of  the  other  roads  which 
led  by  Alba,  or  to  the  north  of  that  town,  to  Provence  and  Liguria. 
It  is  thus  easily  intelligible  how  Asti  became  the  great  city  of  West 
Lombardy,  Turin,  Alba  and  even  Ivrea  being  far  outdistanced. 

Two  Ligurian  counties  were  reached  through  Asti  by  these  passes 
from  Tenda  eastwards,  those  of  Ventimiglia  and  Albenga,  and  as  they 
were  thus  linked  in  trade  with  Piedmont  there  is  some  reason  to  think 
they  were  linked  in  government. 

It  only  remains  for  me  to  mention  the  ecclesiastical  divisions  of  this 
territory  which  were  by  no  means  identical  with  the  civil.  In  a.d.  iooo 
the  whole  lay  in  the  great  province  of  Milan,  and  there  were  six  bishops. 
The  two  Ligurian  Bishoprics  of  Albenga  and  Ventimiglia  corresponded 
to  the  like-named  counties  and  need  no  further  mention.  So  did  that 
of  Alba.  But  the  diocese  of  Turin  included  the  two  counties  of  Turin 
and  Aurade ;  that  of  Asti  not  only  the  counties  of  Asti  and  Bredolo, 
but  also  most  of  Montferrat,  while  Ivrea  to  its  like-named  county  added 
too  a  share  of  the  same  district. 

The  origin  of  the  Ardoinid  house  in  Italy  is  given  us  by  a  picturesque 
recital  of  the  Chronicle  of  Novalesa\     There  were,  the  Chronicler  tells 

1  Bk  v.  Cap.  8,  Cipolla,  Monuvienta  Novaliciensia  vetustiora,  il.  249  (Car. 
Reg.  I.).  It  begins,  "  Itaque  dum  reteximus  acta  vel  gesta  regum,  dignum  est  ut  de 
vassis  loquamur.  Arduini  infelicem  prolem  satagimus  dicere.  Antiquorum  igitur 
sermo  narrat,  quia  fuerunt  duo  fratres  Rogerius  et  Arduinus  et  unus  eorum  cliens 
nomine  Alineus.  Hii  ergo  prodigi  et  exuti  omnibus  rebus  ad  Italiam  veniunt  de 
sterilibus  montibus.  Subeunt  colla  nobilibus.  Divites  in  proximo  existunt.  Ipsi 
vero  sibimet  spondunt,  si  quis  eorum  alcior  insurgeret,  ceteri  adjutores  et  servitores 

essent  illius  numinis Dum  ita  sermocinarentur,    Rogerius   avidus   mortali   honore 

eripit  Aureatem  comitatum."     See  notes  (2)  and  (3)  on  next  page  for  the  continuation. 


Roger  Count  of  Aurade  133 

us,  two  brothers,  Roger  and  Ardoin,  "  the  offspring  of  unhappy  Ardoin," 
and  a  dependent  of  theirs  named  Alineus.  The  three,  having  lost  all 
their  possessions,  came  to  Italy  "from  the  barren  mountains."  They 
made  a  mutual  pact  like  brothers  in  a  fairy  tale,  to  whom  perhaps  they 
are  not  so  distantly  related,  that  whichever  of  them  rose  to  honour 
should  be  aided  by  the  other  two,  and  then  proceeded  to  take  service 
with  Italian  nobles.  Roger  became  the  confidant  of  Rudolf,  then 
Count  of  Aurade  round  Saluzzo^  Ardoin  was  less  successful.  His 
fortune  was  to  become  a  mere  vassal  of  Rudolf's ^  Count  Rudolf, 
however,  the  tale  goes  on,  was  aged  and  infirm,  and  used  the  adroit 
Roger  as  his  envoy  at  the  royal  court  of  Pavia.  So  well  did  he  prosper 
that  Rudolf  sent  him  again,  tricked  out  in  splendid  attire,  the  chronicler 
says,  this  time  recommending  him  as  his  successor  in  the  county  of 
Aurade.  The  King  consented,  at  the  Queen's  intervention,  and  Count 
Roger  on  his  return  found  his  predecessor  dead  and  married  his  widow ^ 
Of  course  this  account,  though  not  so  late  (c.  1060),  is  legendary  in 
character.  Yet  some  parts  of  it  can  be  substantiated.  The  Ardoinids 
were  Counts  of  Aurade  or  Auriade^  where  much  of  their  possessions 

^  Cf.  below,  n.  4  and  pp.  135-6. 

-  "Tunc  quidem  comes  erat,  cui  potestas  concessa  erat  illius  comitatus,  Rodulfus 
nomine.  Aliter  sellers  Arduinus  non  valens  tenere  comitatum  ilium,  manibus  vi 
nexis,  militem  fit  Rodulfi,"  Chron.  Noval.,  loc.  cit.  That  Roger  obtained  the  county 
has  already  been  mentioned.  The  above,  "  vi  nexis,"  is  Count  Cipolla's  reading  of 
the  text,  but  from  an  examination  of  the  facsimile  he  gives  {Mon.  Nov.  Ii.  pi.  v.),  it 
seems  to  me  that  the  true  reading  is  "  innexis."  It  is  written  in  one  word.  There  is 
a  faint  trace  of  the  upper  curve  of  the  second  stroke  of  the  "n,"  and  the  writer,  else- 
where as  well  as  here,  gives  short  hooks  at  top  and  bottom  to  his  "  i's,"  the  lower  of 
which  reaches  to  the  middle  of  the  first  stroke  of  the  next  letter.  The  words,  then, 
describe  the  act  of  homage. 

•*  Chron.  Noval.,  loc.  cit.,  "Ipse  denique  Rodulfus,  jam  fessus  longa  senectute, 
Rogerium  ad  se  vocat,  semotis  cunctis.  '  Vides  me  creber  in  malis,  edes  regales  jam 
lustrare  non  sufficio,  mitto  te  ad  eum  ut  conscideres  quae  facienda  sunt  '...ad  Papiam 
venit  civitatem.  Rex  namque  illic  manebat — Viditque  senior,  quod  providenter 
egisset.  Vicinius  ad  se  eum  damans,  inquit  :  '  Post  mortem  quippe  mea,  senior 
totius  terraeeris,  quam  cognosco  me  pridem  habuisse.'  Et  iterum  eum  omans  diversis 
monilibus  ad  regem  mittit.  Qui  adquirit  comitatum  illius,  et  rex  illi  donat,  inter- 
veniente  regina.  Et  ipse  comes  interim  mortuus,  uxorem  illius  Rogerius  accepit." 
The  mention  of  the  Queen's  intervention  is  good  evidence  that  the  chronicler  had  a 
document  to  go  upon. 

*  The  confirmatory  evidence  for  the  county  of  Aurade  is  remarkably  slight,  as  it 
was  included  with  that  of  Turin  in  the  diocese  of  Turin  (see  for  limits  of  latter  Savio, 
Gli  anlichi  vescoz'i,  pp.  580-3).  "  Paganus  vice-comes  Auradiensis  "  appears  in  1080 
as  a  subordinate  of  Countess  Adelaide  (Car.  Keg.  ccil.,  Carte  cTOulx,  B.S.S.S.  XLV. 
p.  42).  Then  in  a  charter  of  Adelaide's  dated  1075  (Car.  Reg.  ci.xxviii.,  Carte 
cTOtilx,  p.  32),  which  unfortunately  has  been  at  least  rehandled  {Gi\.ho\\.o,  Miscellanea 
Saluzzese,  B.S.S.S.  xv.  p.  cxxvii. ),  we  find  its  extent  (if  only  by  thirteenth-century 
tradition):  "a  Thaner  fluvio  per  totum  Oiradum  ad  pedem  usque  moncium."     It  is 


134  The  rise  of  the  Ardoinids  of  Turin 

lay.  It  is  likely  that  it  was  their  earUest  county.  Their  hereditary  law 
was  Salic ^  which  accords  very  well  with  an  immigration  from  beyond 
the  Alps.  The  time  of  their  migration  and  acquisition  of  Aurade^  is 
that  when  the  persotmel  of  the  greater  nobility  in  North  Italy  was  in 
course  of  change  under  the  warring  kings  after  Charles  the  Fat's 
deposition ^  It  is  possible  even  that  Count  Rudolf  is  the  Count  Radolf 
who  is  mentioned  in  a  diploma  of  the  Emperor  Lewis  the  Blind  in  902*. 
As  to  the  possible  earlier  ancestors  of  the  Ardoinid  house  there  is 
an  ingenious  speculation  of  Terraneo's*.  Under  the  Emperor  Charles 
the  Bald  there  was  in  853  an  Arduin  Count  of  either  Avranches, 
Coutances,  Bayeux  or  Lisieux  in  Francia  Neustria.  This  Count  Arduin 
had  a  son  Count  Odo  and  a  daughter  Ansgarde,  who  in  862  was  married 
to  King  Louis  the  Stammerer,  and  whom  in  866  the  latter  was  obliged 

mentioned  by  Ulric-Manfred  as  Oriadensis  in  102 1  (Car.  Reg.  L.,  Carte  del  Pinerolese 
{B.S.S.S.  III.  1),  p.  172)  and  is  linked  with  that  of  Turin  by  Emperor  Henry  VI  in 
1 194  (Stumpf,  4865).  Cf.  Bresslau,  op.  cit.  i.  365,  and  Terraneo,  op,  cit.  i.  Cap.  xvi. 
pp.  1 16  ff. 

^  See  e.g.  Car.  Reg.  Lxxvi.  (Cipolla,  Le  pin  antiche  carte  dipt,  di  S.  Giusto  dt 
Susa  (Bull.  Istit.  stor.  ital.  18),  pp.  68  and  75). 

^  About  890  to  910  ;  see  note  4  below. 

•''  See  Pivano,  Stato  e  Chiesa,  pp.  1 13-15,  149-50. 

*  Car.  Reg.  i.  (Schiaparelli,  I  Diplomi  di  Lodovico  III  e  di  Rodolfo  II,  Fonti  per 
la  storia  d'ltalia,  p.  52).  A  slight  difficulty  may  lie  in  the  dates  derived  as  follows. 
Count  Roger  II  and  Marquess  Ardoin  III  Glabrio  were  brothers.  Roger  IPs 
probably  younger  daughter  Guntilda  married  in  962  (Car.  Reg.  viii.  and  ix.,  id. 
Umberto  /etc.  ed.  11.  pp.  285  and  288).  Say  she  was  18  at  marriage  ;  then  she  was 
born  c.  944  ;  her  possible  elder  sister  Officia  could  be  born  c.  942,  and  Roger  II  born 
c.  917,  being  25  at  the  birth  of  Officia.  But  Ardoin  Ill's  eldest  son,  Manfred  I,  is 
said  to  have  been  already  married  951  ;  say  he  married  in  950;  marrying  say  at  25, 
he  would  be  born  c.  925.  Thus  his  father  would  be  horn  c.  900.  But  the  fact  of 
Manfred  I's  marriage  by  951  is  anything  but  certain;  see  below,  p.  137,  n.  8,  and 
especially  p.  143,  n.  4  ;  and  to  give  25  as  a  marrying  age  for  a  man  and  eldest  son  is 
a  liberal  arrangement  for  the  Dark  Ages.  Count  di  Vesme  (/  Conti  di  Verona, 
Nuovo  Archivio  Veneto,  1896,  Tomo  xi.  pp.  280-5),  however,  arranges  the  dates  still 
further  apart,  making  Roger  II,  Ardoin  Ill's  elder  brother,  born  c.  890  and  marrying 
c.  925.  Thirty-five  is  surely  too  old  for  any  but  a  widower  to  marry  at  in  the  tenth 
and  eleventh  centuries.  Chron.  Noval.,  loc.  cit.  certainly  mentions  Roger  II  before 
Ardoin  III,  but  this  need  not  mean  much  for  us  in  a  chronicler  150  years  after  the 
events;  and  if  we  put  Ardoin  Ill's  and  Manfred  I's  marriages  at  rather  earlier  ages, 
we  bring  the  two  series  together.  But  the  fact  is  that,  where  so  many  data  are  lacking, 
we  cannot  make  safe  deductions. 

■5  Adelaide... illustrata,  i.  Cap.  xiii.  Bresslau's  judgment  seems  a  little  too 
sceptical  {op.  cit.  i.  361).  Terraneo's  view,  which  makes  Ardoin  I  the  unnamed 
son  of  Count  Odo,  seems  preferable  to  Signor  di  Vesme's  (/  Conti  di  Verona, 
Nuovo  Arch.  Veneto,  Anno  vi.  T.  xi.  pp.  279,  281-2,  cf.  Patrucco,  Fam.  sign. 
Saluzzo,  B.S.S.S.  x.  pp.  60-1)  view  which  makes  Ardoin  II  and  Roger  I  sons 
of  Count  Oddo  :  which  takes  "  proles  infelicis  Arduini "  to  mean  descendants  merely. 
It  depends  on  his  chronological  argument,  for  which  see  n.  4  above. 


The  county  of  Aurade  135 

to  divorce.  Count  Odo  also  appears  in  870  in  connection  with  a  Count 
Arduin,  who  was  possibly  his  brother.  Then  in  878  we  find  King  Louis 
the  Stammerer  making  war  on  a  Count  Gosfrid,  who  with  the  North- 
men's aid  had  seized  on  the  lands  of  the  son  of  the  late  Count  Odo. 
Gosfrid  submitted,  but  was  reinvested  with  his  conquest.  Ansgarde 
died  between  878  and  883:  her  sons,  Louis  III  and  Carloman,  died 
young.  So  all  chance  of  restoration  for  her  kinsmen  vanished.  Now 
Terraneo  conjectures  that  the  unnamed  son  of  Count  Odo  is  the 
"  infelix  Arduinus  "  of  the  Chronicle  of  Novalesa.  His  children  would 
be  Count  Roger  I  and  Ardoin  IL  It  is  obvious  that  the  hypothesis 
rests  only  on  homonymy — Ardoin  and  Oddo  being  family  names  of  the 
Ardoinids — and  on  the  fact  of  a  loss  of  possessions  suffered  by  both, 
and  on  the  Salic  law  of  the  Ardoinids,  which  is  also  natural  for  a 
magnate  of  Francia  Neustria.  On  such  slight  grounds  one  cannot 
accept  it,  yet  it  seems  to  provide  a  very  fitting  prologue  to  what  we 
know. 

In  any  case  by  the  year  910  Count  Roger  I  was  in  possession  of  the 
county  of  Aurade'.  As  we  have  seen-,  this  rarely  mentioned  district 
lay  in  the  south  of  the  diocese  of  Turin.  Its  southerly  limit  must  have 
been  the  county  of  Bredolo ;  thus  the  frontier  would  be  identical  with 
that  of  the  diocese  of  Turin  and  would  run  between  the  river  Gesso  and 
the  river  Stura  di  Demonte ;  thence  along  the  Stura  and  the  Tanaro. 
On  the  west  the  Alps  of  course  formed  the  boundary.  On  the  north 
Count  di  Vesme''  draws  the  frontier  in  a  wavy  line  so  as  to  exclude 
Savigliano  and  include  Lagnasco  and  Cavour.  Its  capital  was  the  town 
of  Aurade,  which  is  identified  by  Professor  Gabotto  and  Signor  di 
Vesme  with  Caraglio,  while  traces  of  the  name  are  to  be  seen  in  the 
village  of  Valloriate  near  Borgo  S.   Dalmazzo*.     In  Aurade  we  find 

'  Terraneo,  Adelaide. ..ilhislrata,  Pt  i.  Cap.  xv.  argues  that  the  date  of  the 
acquisition  of  the  county  of  Aurade  by  Roger  I  was  probably  906-10,  as  then  the 
queen  of  Berengar  I  was  Bertila,  daughter  of  Suppo,  Count  of  neighbouring  Turin, 
and  thus  her  intervention  (see  above,  p.  133)  is  accounted  for.  From  900-6  there 
were  civil  wars,  and  Berengar  I  would  hardly  be  peacefully  residing  in  Pavia  granting 
away  the  western  counties,  and  from  916  Berengar  would  be  styled  Emperor.  Of 
course  this  assumes  that  the  chronology  can  be  arranged  as  suggested  on  p.  134,  n.  4. 

^  See  above,  p.  134,  n.  4. 

*  Le  origini  della  feiidalita  nel  Pinerolese  {B.S.S.S.  i.),  p.  5,  n.  i.  Signor  di 
Vesme  does  not  give  references  to  support  his  results.  Cf.  Bresslau,  op.  cit.  p.  365, 
Terraneo,  Adelaide... ilhistrata,  Pt  I.  Cap.  xvi.,  Patrucco,  Le  famiglie  sign,  di 
Saluzzo  (B.S.S.S.  X.),  pp.  58-9,  Durandi,  Piemonte  Cispadano,  pp.  99-104.  Barelli 
(Studi  Saliazesi,  B.S.S.S.  X.  p.  46)  shows  Savigliano  was  in  the  county  of  Turin  in 
981,  quoting  a  charter  in  M.H.P.  Chart.  I.  151. 

^  See  Bresslau,  loc.  cit.  and  Terraneo,  loc.  cit.  For  the  identification  of  Aurade 
with  Caraglio,  see  Gabotto,  /  municipi  romani  delV  Italia  occidentale  alia  morte  di 
Teodosio  il grande  [Misc.  Saluzzese,  B.S.S.S.  xxxiil.),  pp.  291-4. 


136  The  rise  of  the  Ardoinids  of  Turin 

considerable  Ardoinid  possessions  in  the  tenth  and  eleventh  centuries, 
e.g.  at  Pollenzo\  Revello",  Romanisio  (near  Fossano),  Saluzzo*,  Pae- 
sana*,  Barge*,  Scarnafigi''  and  Genola'',  and  in  the  Val  di  Maira^  And 
if  we  remember  that  our  information  deals  largely  with  what  they  gave 
away,  and  that  one  of  the  two  confirmatory  diplomas  does  not  seem  to 
give  a  full  list^  it  will  be  seen  that  their  possessions  were  very  extensive. 

There  remains  to  mention  the  probable  fortunes  of  that  vassal 
Alineus,  whom  the  Chronicle  gives  as  companion  of  the  two  brothers. 
In  1018  a  certain  Robaldus  appears,  son  of  the  late  Alineus,  who  also  has 
an  Alineus  for  his  eldest  son.  He  possesses  land  in  Cervere,  Tarantasca, 
Caraglio,  etc.,  in  Aurade,  and  it  would  seem  that  some  of  the  families 
which  later  made  up  the  consorzi  of  feudal  lords  in  the  Val  di  Stura 
belonged  to  the  same  parent  stock ^^ 

According  to  the  Chronicle  of  Novalesa"  the  fortunate  Count  Roger  I 
had  two  sons  of  his  marriage.  Count  Roger  II  and  Marquess  Ardoin  III 


^  Car.  Reg.  CMXL.  (CipoUa,  Monuuienta  Noval.  ir.  269),  Car.  Reg.  XXXIX.  {Mon. 
Nov.  I.  134),  Car.  Reg.  Lxvin.  {Carte  antiche  di  Caramagna,  B.S.S.S.  xv.  p.  61). 
The  list  in  the  text  does  not  pretend  to  be  complete  ;  it  is  inserted  to  give  an  idea  of 
the  Ardoinid  properties. 

2  Car.  Reg.  xxil.  (M.G.ff.  Dipl.  11.  841),  LXIV.  (Carle  del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S. 
III.  2,  p.  174),  Lxviii.  (see  note  i). 

^  Car.  Reg.  LXViii.  (see  n.  i).  See  Durandi,  Pienionte  Cispadano,  pp.  140-1, 
for  Romanisio  (Car.  Reg,  l.xiv.,  see  n.  2). 

^  Car.  Reg.  xxii.  (see  n.  2). 

^  Car.  Reg.  xxii.  (see  n.  2). 

^  Car.  Reg.  xxxviii.  {M.G.H.  Dipl.  111.  379  and  iv.  423). 

''  Car.  Reg.  xciv.  (Cipolla,  Le  pin  antiche  carte  di  S.  Giuslo  (Bull.  Istit.  stor.  ital. 
18),  p.  76). 

8  Car.  Reg.  Lxviii.  (see  n.  i). 

^  Car.  Reg.  xxii.  {M.G.H.  Dipl.  11.  841),  since  Ulric-Manfred  possesses  lands, 
e.g.  at  Saluzzo  and  in  the  Val  di  Maira  (Car.  Reg.  LXViii.),  which  are  not  mentioned 
in  XXII. 

^•^  See  for  these  Alineids,  Professor  Gabotto,  //  ^^ comune"  a  Cuneo  nel secolo XIII 
e  le  origiiii  coniunali  in  Pienionte  {Boll.  soc.  stor.  subalp.  Anno  v.),  pp.  41-74,  and 
Professor  Patrucco,  Le  famiglie  sign,  di  Saluzzo  {B.S.S.S.  X.),  pp.  87  fif.  I  doubt 
whether  all  the  schemes  of  descent  from  Alineus  for  the  numerous  "consorzili" 
families  can  be  regarded  as  made  out.  In  any  case  it  seems  that  the  charter  of 
Marquess  Manfred  I  to  Alineus  and  Anselm,  sons  of  Robaldus,  5  March  984,  must 
be  regarded  as  a  later  medieval  forgery,  though  perhaps  the  tradition  of  the  personages 
is  real.  See  Salsotto,  Libro  Vei-de...di  Fossano  {B.S.S.S.  xxxviii.),  pp.  91-2,  where 
the  Latin  text  of  the  charter  is  for  the  first  time  given.  Cf.  also  on  the  Alineids 
Desimoni,  Sulle  marc/ie  dVtalia  (Atti  Soc.  Lig.  stor.  pat.  xxviii.  1896),  Letter  iv. 
pp.  186-7. 

"  Bk  IV.  Caps.  8  and  9  (Cipolla,  Alon.  Noval.  11.  249),  "  De  qua  (Rodulfi  vidua) 
genuit  filios  duos,  vocans  uni  nomen  suum,  alteri  nomen  fratris,  Rogerium  et 
Arduinum  :  hie  enim  Maginfredum  genuit."  The  last  phrase  is  an  early  corrector's 
addition  according  to  Count  Cipolla  {op.  cit.  Ii.  251). 


Roger  II   and  Ardoin   III  137 

Glabrio\  The  first  mentioned  has  the  least  importance  and  perhaps 
was  the  elder-.  He  appears  to  have  become  a  monk  in  the  Benedictine 
Abbey  of  Breme  (Novalesa)^,  and  was  dead  by  the  3rd  September  962, 
since  in  that  year  he  is  mentioned  as  dead  in  a  charter^  This  docu- 
ment relates  to  the  cession  of  land  at  Mosezzo  and  Vicolongo  (near 
Novara)  in  the  county  of  Pombia  by  Egilric,  of  the  Counts  of  Lomello,  to 
his  ward  Guntilda.  He  did  so  in  return  for  her  dowry  on  her  marriage 
to  Amadeus,  son  of  Anscari  II  of  Ivrea.  Since  he  and  his  wife  Officia 
had  already  made  a  cession  of  land  at  the  same  places  to  Guntilda,  and 
we  want  an  explanation  of  his  guardianship,  it  has  been  suggested  by 
Count  di  Vesme®  that  Officia  was  probably  Guntilda's  elder  sister;  and 
thus  when  Count  Roger  II  retired  to  a  monastery,  without  having  had 
a  son,  Egilric  took  charge  of  his  sister-in-law. 

The  first  appearance  of  Ardoin  III  Glabrio,  "the  hairless"  as  the 
Novalesan  Chronicler  styles  him",  is  on  the  T3th  April  945,  when  he  is 
present  at  a  placitian  held  at  Pavia  by  King  Lothar  II,  the  son  of 
King  Hugh^  He  is  then  styled  Count,  and  may  have  already  been  of 
ripe  age,  if  his  son,  Manfred  I,  was  really  married  by  951*.  The  next 
dated  record  of  him  is  on  the   13th  November  9^0  and  shows  him 

'  That  Ardoin  III,  father  of  Manfred  in  the  passage  cited  in  previous  note,  is  the 
great  Ardoin  Glabrio  of  other  passages,  is  clear  from  the  names,  Salic  law  and  con- 
venient dates  and  territories.  The  genealogy  from  Ulric-Manfred  back  to  him  is 
given  in  Car.  Reg,  Lxxvi.  Cf.  Bresslau,  op.  cit.  pp.  362-3  and  Terraneo,  op.  cit. 
Part  I.  Cap.  xii.,  where  the  personality  of  Ardoin  III  Glabrio  is  fully  established,  and 
since  which  it  has  not  been  questioned. 

-  See  above,  p.  134,  n.  4. 

•■■  Car.  Keg.  CMXXxvii.  (Cipolla,  Man.  Nova!.  II.  266,  Ch'roii.  Naval,  v.  24), 
*'Duo  magni  comites  fuerunt  qui  hisdem  temporibus  vestigia  S.  Benedicti  arripiunt... 
Rogerius  vocatus  est  unus,  alter  dicius  est  Otbertus,  illustres  secundum  sanguinem, 
sed  illustriores  secundum  stegmata  divina."  The  Abbey  of  Novalesa  in  the  valley  of 
Susa,  just  below  the  Mont  Cenis  Pass,  had  been  ruined  by  the  Saracens,  and  its 
monks,  who  still  often  used  the  old  name,  obtained  a  new  establishment  in  929  at 
Breme  on  the  Po,  not  far  above  Pavia,  from  Marquess  Adalbert  of  Ivrea  {Chron. 
Noval.  II.  19,  V.  2,  15-17,  in  Cipolla,  Mon.  Naval.  11.  164,  245,  258-60.  See  also 
the  charter  of  King  Hugh  in  id.  i.  loi ;  and  Abbot  Belegrim's  letter,  Mon.  Noval. 
II.    286). 

■*  Car.  Reg.  viii.  and  ix.  (Carutti,  //  conte  Uinberia  I  e  il  re  Ardaino,  ed.  11. 
pp.  285  ff.  and  288  ff.),  "  Guntilda  filia  quondam  Rotgerii  comitis." 

'  /  Canti  di  Verona  (Nuovo  Arch.  Veneto,  1896  (Anno  vi.  T.  xi.),  p.  285).  The 
mention  of  Officia  is  as  follows,  "  unde  tercia  portione  ex  ipsa  medietas  de  jamdictis 
omnibus  rebus  seu  familiis  tibi  Guntilde  ante  os  dies  simul  cum  Oficia  congnus  mee 
per  carlulam  dedimus  " — a  fine  instance  of  Latinized  vernacular. 

*  Chron.  Noval.  v.  21  (Cipolla,  Man.  Noval.  II.  263). 

^  Tiraboschi,  Nonantola,  11.  118,  cf.  Pivano,  op.  cit.  p.  133,  and  Bresslau,  op.  cit. 
p.  366. 

*•  Vet  this  is  only  attested  by  the  Novalesan  Chronicler,  v.  ir  (Cipolla,  op.  cit.  il. 
256),  in  an  obvious  legend.     See  below,  pp.  142-3,  and  above,  p.  134,  n.  4. 


138  The  rise  of  the  Ardoinids  of  Turin 

already  Count  of  Turin.  In  that  month,  it  seems,  King  Lothar  II,  who 
from  945  had  been  almost  a  puppet  in  the  hands  of  Marquess  Berengar 
of  Ivrea,  journeyed  with  his  queen,  Adelaide  of  Burgundy,  from  Pavia 
to  Turin,  and  by  a  royal  preceptum  of  the  13th  granted  to  Ardoin  the 
Abbey  of  Breme-Novalesa  in  commendam,  to  the  intense  indignation  of 
the  monks,  who  attributed  the  rapidly  succeeding  death  of  Lothar  to 
divine  vengeance'.  In  this  narrative  Ardoin  clearly  holds  the  county 
of  Turin,  which  remained  in  the  possession  of  his  descendants".  In  the 
city  in  a  castle  built  by  the  Susian  or  western  gate,  looking  towards  the 
passes  of  the  Alps,  their  chief  residence  seems  to  have  been^  Bresslau* 
has  placed  the  date  and  reason  of  this  new  Ardoinid  acquisition  on  a 
fairly  certain  basis.  The  county  of  Turin  had  been  one  of  those 
subject  to  the  Anscarid  Marquesses  of  Ivrea.  In  940  they  had  come 
into  open  collision  with  the  Kings,  Hugh  and  his  son  Lothar  II.  Anscar, 
the  younger  brother,  Marquess  of  Spoleto,  was  defeated  and  killed ; 
Berengar,  the  elder,  Marquess  of  Ivrea,  fled  across  the  Alps  to  Swabia. 
Obviously  his  counties  and  probably  other  possessions  would  be  dis- 
tributed by  the  Kings  to  new  holders  :  and  as  Ardoin  Glabrio  appears  in 
the  above  narrative  as  being  in  special  relations  with  King  Lothar  IP 
we  may  assume  that  there  was  no  intermediate  Count  to  be  dispossessed 
in  945  on  Berengar's  victorious  return,  and  that  Ardoin's  retention  of 
Turin  was  the  price  of  his  acquiescence  in  Berengar's  rule.  Nor  are 
we  wholly  in  the  dark  as  to  why  the  Count  of  Aurade  was  selected 
rather  than  another  to  govern  Turin  as  well.  It  is  the  old  story  of  the 
border-province.    The  Saracen  pirates  with  their  base  at  their  settlement 


^  Ckrotj.  Noval.  v.  3,  and  21,  and  App.  ni.  (Cipolla,  op.  cit.  pp.  246,  263-4,  and 
285-90).  The  date  and  events  are  given  in  v.  3  ;  the  fact  that  Ardoin  begged  the 
grant,  v.  21.  Abbot  Belegrim's  narrative  to  Pope  John  XIII  (c.  972)  in  App.  in. 
agrees:  "Lotharius  regulus,  filius  Ugonis  regis,  deceptus  blandiciis  fraudibusve  sevi 
duels  (elsewhere  Ardoinus  marchio  and  comes)... nescientibus  Italis  principibus, 
nobisque  ignorantibus,  pro  dolor  !  clam  firmavit  illud  preceptum." 

^  Chron.  Noval.  V.  3  (Cipolla,  Mon.  Noval.  11.  246).  It  is  only  inference  of 
course.  Other  evidence  re  Ardoin  Glabrio's  possession  of  the  county  is  provided  by 
the  facts  that  he  imprisoned  Saracens  in  Turin  {Chro7i.  Noval.  v,  i,  Cipolla,  Mon. 
Noval.  II.  243),  and  that  it  was  he  who  reconquered  the  Val  di  Susa  (see  below, 
pp.  146-7).  In  1016  Marquess  Oddo,  grandson  of  Glabrio,  e.xercises  the  functions  of 
Count  at  Chieri  in  the  county  of  Turin  (Car.  Reg.  XLii.) ;  Countess  Adelaide,  besides 
having  her  rule  fully  implied  by  St  Peter  Damian  (Car.  Reg.  CLVli.),  is  actually  called 
"Taurinensis  comitessa"  by  Bernold  {M.G.H.  Script,  v.  453,  Car.  Reg.  ccxix.), 
and  her  son  Peter  I  acts  as  Count  of  Turin,  Car.  Reg.  CLX.  (Guichenon,  Preuves, 
p.   22). 

•'  e.g.  Car.  Reg.  LXXXViii.  (Cognasso,  Cartario  di  S.  Solutore,  B.S.S.S.  XLlv. 
p.   10),  Car.  Reg.   CLXi.  {Cartario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  11.  p.  323). 

*  op.  cit.  pp.  365-6. 

®  See  above,  n.  i. 


The  Saracen  ravages  139 

of  Fraxinetum  (round  the  Golfe  de  St  Tropez,  near  which  the  name 
remains  as  la  Garde-Freinet)  in  Provence  held  the  passes  of  the  Alps  as 
far  as  Mont-Joux,  the  present  Great  St  Bernard ;  and  their  raids  in- 
creased the  misery  of  the  wretched  inhabitants  of  Piedmont  even  above 
the  common  level  of  that  age  of  iron.  But  naturally  the  man,  who 
could  make  head  against  them  and  keep  Aurade,  though  the  town  itself 
was  perhaps  destroyed  \  from  the  state  of  Grenoble  or  some  parts  of 
Provence  ^  was  likely  to  obtain  a  higher  rank,  and  be  entrusted  with 
the  similar  task  of  defending  Turin  and  its  territory. 

Ardoin  must  of  course  have  taken  part  in  King  Hugh's  operations 
against  the  Saracens  in  942.  The  King  had  laid  his  plans  with  con- 
siderable skill.  Realizing  that,  while  the  enemy  retained  command  of 
the  sea,  it  was  hopeless  to  think  of  capturing  Fraxinetum,  and  that  any 
check  he  inflicted  on  them  without  destroying  their  base  would  be  a 
mere  palliative,  he  obtained  the  aid  of  the  East  Roman  Emperor 
Romanus.  A  fleet  armed  with  the  famous  Greek  fire  was  sent  from 
Constantinople  to  Fraxinetum  and  burnt  all  the  Saracen  vessels. 
Meanwhile  Hugh  at  the  head  of  his  army  attacked  by  land.  With  the 
harbour  blockaded,  he  was  able  to  pierce  the  surrounding  forest  and  to 
enter  Fraxinetum  itself  and  drive  the  Saracens  up  into  the  Montagnes 
des  Maures.  But  Hugh  had  in  the  exiled  Marquess  Berengar  a  more 
dangerous  foe  than  in  the  Saracens.  In  order,  we  are  told,  to  fortify 
himself  against  his  personal  enemy  he  sacrificed  his  unhappy  kingdom, 
sent  away  the  allied  fleet  and  made  peace  with  the  marauders  on  con- 
dition that  they  should  hold  the  Swabian  passes  against  any  forces  his 
rival  might  bring  to  combat  him  from  the  north".  "The  number  of 
the  Christian  pilgrims  whose  blood  they  shed,"  says  LuitprandS  "  He 

^  At  any  rate  this  is  a  likely  cause  of  Aurade's  disappearance.  Cf.  Patrucco, 
/  Saraceni  nelle  Alpi  occidentaU  {B.S.S.S.  xxxil.),  p.  422. 

-  Cf.  above,  p.  5,  and  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  pp.  87  and  89. 

•'  Luitprand,  Antapodosis,  V.  9,  16,  17  ;  with  regard  to  the  campaign  he  says: 
"  Rex  itaque  Hugo  congregato  exercitu,  classibus  per  Tirrenum  mare  ad  Fraxinetum 
directis,  terrestri  ipse  eo  itinere  pergit.  Quo  dum  Greci  pervenirent,  igne  projecto 
Sarracenorum  naves  mox  omnes  exurunt.  Sed  et  rex  Fraxinetum  ingressus,  Sarracenos 
omnes  in  montem  Maurum  fugere  compulit;  in  quo  eos  circumsedendo  capere  posset, 
si  res  hec,  quam  prompturus  sum,  non  impediret.  Rex  Hugo  Berengarium,  ne  col- 
lectis  ex  Francia  et  ex  Suevia  copiis  super  se  irrueret,  regnumque  sibi  auferret,  maxime 
timuit.  Unde,  non  bono  accepto  consilio,  Graecos  ad  propria  mox  remisit  ;  ipseque 
cum  Sarracenis  hac  ratione  foedus  iniit,  ut  in  montibus  qui  Sueviam  atque  Italiam 
dividunt  starent ;  ut  si  forte  Berengarius  exercitum  ducere  vellet,  transire  eum  omni- 
modis  prohiberent."  Cf.  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  pp.  93-4,  Patrucco,  /  Saraceni, 
pp.  420-1.  In  connection  with  this  transaction  as  to  the  Swabian  passes,  the  ruin  of 
the  diocese  of  Chur  in  these  times  may  be  noted.  See  Otto's  diplomas  of  940  and 
955  ('^f-G.H.  Dipl.  i.  113  and  175),  Patrucco,  op.  cit.  pp.  354  and  355. 

*  Antapodosis,  v.  17, 


140  The  rise  of  the  Ardoinids  of  Turin 

alone  knows  Who  keeps  their  names  written  in  the  book  of  the  living. 
How  wickedly,  King  Hugh,  dost  thou  strive  to  defend  the  kingdom  for 
thyself ! " 

The  election  of  Berengar  H  and  his  son  Adalbert  as  joint-Kings  in 
December  950  seems  to  have  been  one  cause  of  the  promotion  of 
Ardoin  Glabrio  to  the  rank  of  Marquess.  The  rank  seems  to  imply, 
so  far  as  the  "  new  "  tenth-century  Marks  of  North  Italy  are  concerned, 
the  possession  of  several  counties,  which  were  ruled  under  the  Marquess 
by  Viscounts.  He  had  not  necessarily  Counts  as  subordinates,  as  was  the 
case  in  the  "older"  marks  of  Spoleto  and  Tuscany'.     In  consequence, 

'  This  is  pretty  nearly  the  view  advanced  by  Ficker,  Forschungen  zur  Rcichs-  und 
Rcchtsgeschichte  Italians,  I.  pp.  261-5,  'I'^id  maintained  by  Bresslau,  op.  cit.  i.  pp.  372, 
439-43,  and  Hofmeister,  Markgrafen  u.  M arkgrafschaftcn  im  Italischen  Konigreich 
in  der  Zeit  v.  Karl  de/n  Grossen  bis  atif  Otto  den  Grosse  (Mitth.  f.  Osterreich. 
Geschichtsforsch.  Erganzungb.  vil.  pp.  258-63).  In  general  the  argument  is,  that 
where  the  Marquess  can  be  proved  to  govern  there  is  no  trace  of  a  separate  Count; 
the  Marquess  himself  is  ?narchio  et  comes  istius  comitatus  in  his  placita ;  and  that 
where  we  find  a  mere  Count,  there  is  no  sign  of  a  Marquess  over  his  head.  On  the 
other  hand,  Desimoni  {Sulle  inarche  d'ltalia,  pp.  141-52  and  191-4),  Prof.  Gabotto, 
Count  di  Vesme  and  their  school  believe  that  North  Italy  was  systematically  mapped 
out  into  Marks  (analogous  to  the  German  Duchies)  in  the  tenth  century,  these  Marks 
being  ruled  by  Marquesses,  who  had  both  Counts  and  Viscounts  under  them  according 
to  circumstances.  With  regard  to  the  Mark  of  the  Ardoinids,  with  which  only  we  are 
concerned  here,  the  evidence  bearing  on  the  question  is  as  follows,  (i)  Car.  Reg. 
LXXXVIII.  {Cartario  di  S.  Solutore  di,Torino,  B.S.S.S.  XLIV.  pp.  10-13).  Here  Ulric- 
Manfred,  grandson  of  Ardoin  III,  and  his  wife  Bertha  in  1031  grant  to  S.  Solutore  of 
Turin  "in  toto  nostro  comitatu  Taurinensi,  Vercellensi,  Yporiensi,  Astensi,  Albensi, 
Albinganensi,  Vigintimiliensi,  Parmensi,  Placentino,  Ticinensi,  Aquensi,  ut  si  aliquis 
liber  homo  aut  libera  servus  vel  ancilla  aliquid  de  rebus  suis  mobilibus  et  inmobilibus 
contulerit  huic  venerabili  monasterio,  sine  calunia  et  contradictione  nostra  nostrorum- 
que  heredum,  potestatem  habeat  judicandi,  donandi,  vendendi,  si  superscripte  res 
aliquo  mode  ad  nos  vel  nostros  heredes  pertinuerint,  dehinc  in  antea  veniant  hec 
omnia  in  proprietate  et  voluntate  suprascripti  monasterii."  Now  there  were  certainly 
then  existing  Counts  of  Ivrea,  and  the  county  of  Parma  was  promised  to  the  Bishop  of 
Parma  when  the  hereditary  Count  of  Parma,  still  living  in  1029.  should  die,  which 
had  happened  by  1036  (Pivano,  op.  cit.  p.  287,  n.  i,  M.G.H.  Dipl.  iv.  193,  298, 
306).  Professor  Gabotto  {Un  Alillennio  di  Storia  Eporediense,  B.S.S.S.  IV.  p.  27) 
therefore  considers  that  all  these  counties  belonged  to  Ulric-Manfred  "  marchional- 
mente,"  with  the  corollary  that  the  Mark  of  Ivrea  and  some  additional  counties  had 
been  added  in  the  eleventh  century  to  the  Ardoinid  Mark  "  of  Turin  "  (on  which  see 
below,  pp.  1 70-1  and  177).  Bresslau,  op.  cit.  p.  365  and  n.  9,  interpreted  nostro  as 
referring  only  to  Turin,  a  view  which  seems  hardly  tenable.  But  the  charter  is  only 
known  from  a  thirteenth-century  copy  :  Aurade  is  left  out ;  and  I  doubt,  if  the  text,  far 
too  grammatical  for  the  eleventh  century,  is  here  correct.  Cf.  Car.  Reg.  L.  (Carte  del 
Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  in.  2,  p.  172),  "  omnibus  rebus  juris  nostris  quibus  sunt  positis 
in  comitatu  etc."  The  copyist  of  Car.  Reg.  Lxxxviil.  was  clearly  correcting  the 
grammar  of  his  original :  and  perhaps  had  some  such  phrase  before  him.  Thus 
LXXXVIII.  is  really  no  evidence  as  it  stands,  (ii)  Oddo  I,  younger  son  of  Ardoin  III, 
and  Oddo  II,  younger  brother  of  Ulric-Manfred,  both  bear  ofificially  the  title  of  Count 


The  mark  of  Turin  141 

perhaps,  there  is  a  certain  honorary  character  in  the  dignity,  and  it 
is  not  easy  to  say  when  Ardoin  Glabrio  obtained  it.  In  documents 
which  are  subsequent  to  his  death,  he  is  invariably  styled  Marquess; 
but  during  his  lifetime  the  first  certain  instance  of  the  occurrence  of 
the  title  being  given  to  him  is  in  an  Astigian  contract  of  964  '.  It 
is  likely,  however,  that  the  dignity  of  Marquess  carried  with  it  certain 
extra  powers,  analogous  to  those  of  the  German  Dukes,  even  if  they 
did  not  extend  beyond  those  counties  of  which  he  was  personally 
Count  ^. 

The  mark  then  of  the  Ardoinids,  which  we  may  call  the  Mark  of 
Turin  from  their  chief  town  and  residence^,  was  composed  of  several 
counties.  How  many  of  those  counties  were  obtained  by  Ardoin 
Glabrio  it  is  hard  to  say ;  but  some  Hght  is  thrown  on  the  subject  by 
various  later  evidence,  and  the  occurrence  of  thickly-strewn  allodial  or 
beneficiary  lands  of  the  house  in  certain  counties  gives  a  kind  of  clue  as 
to  where  the  "  Mark"  extended*.     We  are  able  in  consequence  to  form 

(see  below,  p.  153),  and  Oddo  II  actually  exercises  comital  functions  in  the  county  of 
Turin  (see  below,  p.  152).  Thus  the  style  was  not  merely  honorary,  nor  was  it 
the  consequence  of  the  absence  of  primogeniture,  else  the  title  of  Marquess  would  be 
used  by  Oddo  II  on  the  occasion  just  mentioned.  It  is  difficult  to  resist  the  conclusion 
that  he  was  under-Count  or  coadjutor-Count  of  Turin  for  his  brother  Ulric-Manfred. 
(iii)  There  is  the  activity  of  Countess  Adelaide,  Ulric-Manfred's  heiress,  to  account 
for.  She  was  never  Marchioness  (see  below,  p.  1 53) ;  but  her  husband  and  then  her 
son  and  grandson-in-law  were  Marquesses.  Of  course  the  great  inheritance  she  had 
might  make  her  important,  but  she  seems  to  have  public  functions.  Was  she  Countess 
of  Turin,  etc.  under  these  kinsmen  of  hers  ?  We  have  three  public  acts  of  her  son 
Marquess  Peter  (Car.  Reg.  CLX.  Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  22,  Car.  Sup.  xvi.  and 
Cartario  di  Cavour,  B.S.S.S.  III.  i,  p.  31).  In  none  of  the  three  is  he  called  marchio 
et  comes  but  only  marchio.  In  the  first,  his  mother,  Countess  Adelaide,  presides 
with  him  at  the  placitum :  in  the  second,  too,  they  act  together. 

Thus  the  conclusion  seems  to  be  that  the  Ardoinid  Marquesses  had  under  them 
from  time  to  time  subordinate  Counts  of  their  own  family,  as  a  matter  of  convenience, 
and  for  the  satisfaction  of  hereditary  claims.  But  we  do  not  find  that  their  Mark  was 
built  up  of  subordinate  countships.  As  stated  in  the  text,  it  appears  to  liave  been  a 
coagulation  of  counties  held  by  the  Marquess.  Cf ,  with  regard  to  the  methods  of 
succession  practised,  below,  pp.  151-5. 

Gabotto,  Le pin  antiche  carte. .. d' Asti,  B.S.S.S.  xxvni.  p.  172. 

^  According  to  Mayer,  Italienische  Verfassungsg.  II.  291-9,  302-9,  who  takes  a 
view  of  the  northern  Marks  similar  to  Prof.  Gabotto's,  the  Marquess  possessed  extra 
powers  as  such,  derived  from  his  being  permanent  royal  missus  in  his  counties,  such  as 
the  high  arbitrary  banniim,  the  power  of  punishing  ofiences  against  his  command  and 
dignity,  etc.  like  a  German  Duke.     Cf.  above,  p.  7. 

See  above,  p.  138,  and  cf.  the  P.S.  on  p.  156  below. 

■•  See  the  Appendix  to  this  section.  The  idea  was  worked  out  by  Desimoni, 
op.  cit.,  but  he  believed  he  could  attribute  the  countship  to  the  Ardoinids  in  any 
county  where  they  could  be  shown  to  have  enjoyed  large  possessions,  which  seems 
to  be  an  overpressed  conclusion.     Cf.   Bresslau,  op.  cit.  pp.  410-11. 


142  The  rise  of  the  Ardoinids  of  Turin 

some  general,  if  too  vague,  conclusions.  These  are  that  Marquess 
Ardoin  III  Glabrio  owned  enormous  demesnes  in  the  districts  of  Turin 
and  Aurade,  where  he  was  certainly  Count;  very  respectable  ones  in  those 
of  Alba  and  Bredolo,  where  he  probably  exercised  comital  power ;  and 
possibly  some  in  Albenga,  although  perhaps  this  county  and  its  appur- 
tenances were  acquired  by  his  descendants.  Outside  these  limits  we 
find  indeed  that  it  is  likely  he  possessed  two  or  three  more  counties, 
Pavia  and  Asti,  and  perhaps  Ventimiglia,  and  some  scattered  demesnes 
there  and  elsewhere ;  but  no  real  territorial  preponderance  is  disclosed. 
His  western  possessions  formed  the  nerve  and  the  reality  of  the  Mark. 
As  a  result  we  must  not  exaggerate  his  power.  His  lands  were  only 
freed  from  Saracen  and  Hungarian  devastation  towards  the  end  of  his 
life\  and  an  immense  task  of  repopulation  and  recultivation  had  to  be 
performed. 

Although  Ardoin  had  accepted  Berengar  H's  rule,  he  seems  to  have 
been  no  hearty  supporter  of  the  new  monarch  in  the  difficult  times  that 
followed.  Berengar's  persecution  of  the  widow  of  the  late  King, 
Lothar  H,  ended,  of  course,  in  her  flight  from  her  prison  on  the  Lake 
of  Garda  to  Bishop  Adalard  of  Reggio,  and  her  appeal  to  the  German 
King  Otto  the  Great.  The  northern  army  was  soon  crossing  the 
Brenner,  the  Italian  nobles,  Bishops  and  Counts,  deserted  their  suzerain, 
and  on  the  23rd  September  951  Otto  entered  Pavia,  to  quit  Italy  next 
year,  the  husband  of  Adelaide.  By  August  952  Berengar  II  had  re- 
ceived back  his  mutilated  kingdom  as  a  vassaP. 

Now  something  of  Ardoin  Glabrio's  share  in  these  events  has  trans- 
pired, but,  as  usual  with  our  information  from  the  Novalesan  Chronicler, 
it  has  assumed  the  guise  of  a  folk-tale,  and  the  canny  Marquess  has 
been  transmuted  into  one  of  those  heroes,  fraught  with  infantine 
cunning,  whom  we  are  accustomed  to  meet  with  in  romance  and  epic. 
It  seems  that  when  Queen  Adelaide  eluded  her  bitter  enemy  she  took 
refuge  in  the  impregnable  castle  of  Canossa,  which  belonged  at  that 
time  to  Adalbert-Atto,  the  founder  of  the  greatness  of  his  house. 
Berengar  II  assembled  his  vassals,  among  them  Ardoin  Glabrio,  and 
straitly  blockaded  the  fastness,  on  which  all  assaults  would  have  been 
vain.  After  some  time  the  garrison  began  to  feel  the  pinch  of  famine. 
Their  provisions  ran  short ;  scarcely  any  flour  remained.  It  would 
appear  that  nothing  could  have  saved  the  Queen,  had  not  Atto,  besides 
being  in  league  with  the  Devil,  had  a  friend  and  ally  in  the  enemy's 
camp.  This  was  Ardoin,  whose  son  Manfred  was  the  husband  of 
Atto's  daughter.     Somehow  or  other  the  Marquess  of  Turin  became 

*  See  below,  pp.  143  and  145-7. 

2  See  Diimmler  and  Kopke,  Otto  der  Grosse,  pp.  190-209. 


Ardoin   III  and  Otto  the  Great  143 

aware  of  the  straits  of  the  besieged.  He  obtained  the  King's  consent 
to  his  private  parleying  with  his  relative,  and  at  once  advised  Atto  to 
feed  a  boar  on  the  scanty  remnant  of  wheat,  and  then  to  arrange  that 
the  animal  should  fall  into  the  hands  of  Ardoin's  own  men.  So  it  was 
done.  Ardoin  contrived  to  have  the  boar  cut  open  before  the  King. 
Its  paunch  was  discovered  to  be  full  of  the  finest  wheat.  Such  a  demon- 
stration of  the  riotous  plenty  in  which  the  besieged  lived  broke  down 
Berengar's  resolution,  and  he  withdrew  from  the  siege.  When  Otto  the 
Great  came  to  the  rescue,  he  richly  rewarded  the  brave  defender  for  his 
services  to  the  Queen.  Atto  now  only  had  his  debt  to  pay  to  the  Devil, 
but  when  his  soul  was  required,  he  was  equal  to  the  emergency — astutus 
ut  hydra,  the  family  panegyrist '  says  of  him.  "  I  will  do  it,"  he  said, 
*'  as  the  Apostle  bids  us,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord."  The  baffled  fiend 
vanished  in  smoke,  and  the  greatness  of  the  House  of  Canossa,  and 
perhaps  its  love  of  pious  expressions — "  Dei  misericordia  si  quid  est " 
was  Matilda's  title^ — were  securely  commenced^. 

Whatever  be  the  kernel  of  truth  ■*  round  which  gathered  these 
pleasant  fables,  of  such  incredible  antiquity  and  such  unremitting 
bloom,  I  think  we  may  put  down  Ardoin  as  one  of  those  nobles  who 
were  averse  to  any  strong  central  authority  and  hoped  rather  for  a 
remote  foreign  king ;  but  he  obviously  would  not  be,  like  the  Bishops, 
a  warm  supporter  of  Otto,  anxious  to  found  a  new,  more  civilized 
regime.  His  intervention,  however,  is  not  likely  to  have  been  very  im- 
portant, as  the  Hungarians  twice  swept  over  the  Alpine  passes  to  and 
from  Burgundy  in  this  very  year  951,  and  the  Marquess  of  Turin  must 
have  had  his  preoccupations'*. 

In  954  the  unhappy  land  suffered  again  from  the  Hungarian  scourge. 
After  a  rush  across  southern  Germany  into  France  they  returned  through 
Italy,  and  their  late  chroniclers  say  that  Susa  and  Turin  were  both  cap- 
tured on  their  passage*.  We  may  question  this,  especially  as  there  are 
doubts  of  Susa  being  inhabited  at  the  time'',  but  in  any  case  the 
country  must  have  suffered  severely.  It  needed  Otto  the  Great's 
victory  at  the  Lechfeld  in  955  to  deliver  Italy  with  all  the  West  from 
periodic  devastation  at  Magyar  hands. 


I  Donizo,  Vita  Matildae,  V.  97,  M.G.H.  Script,  xii. 

-  See  e.g.  her  charter  in  Steffen's  facsimile. 

•'  Cliron.  Noval.  v.  10-12  (Cipolla,  Mon.  Noval.  Ii.  255  ff. ). 

*  Kopke-Diimmler,  Otto  der  Grosse,  pp.  196  and  209,  point  out  that  the  siege  of 
Canossa  (which  Doni/o  [Vit.  Mat.  180-302)  as  well  as  Chron.  Ncn>al.  mentions)  must 
have  occurred  after  Otto  I  had  left  Italy,  after  his  marriage  with  Adelaide. 

*  Kopke-Dlimmler,  op.  cit.  p.  195. 
«  id.  p.  235,  n.  4. 

'  See  below,  p.  147. 


144  The  rise  of  the  Ardoinids  of  Turin 

It  was  not  altogether  unnatural  that  the  saviour  of  Italy  from  foreign 
invaders  should  also  be  her  conqueror.  Here  of  course  there  is  no 
need  to  retell  how  Otto  the  Great,  invited  by  the  majority  of  the  Italian 
magnates,  took  possession  of  the  kingdom  in  961  and  was  crowned 
Emperor  of  the  West  in  962,  thus  giving  a  new  feudalized  expression  to 
the  ideal  of  the  Christian  Commonwealth  left  behind  in  the  wreck  of 
the  Carolingian  Empire.  Still  a  fact  or  two  are  known  about  Ar- 
doin  III  at  the  period,  which  cast  a  glimmering  light  on  his  attitude. 

First,  when  Otto  returned  from  Rome  to  Pavia  in  April  962,  the 
monks  of  Breme,  under  the  Empress'  intercession,  brought  forward 
their  complaints  against  Ardoin.  He  had  seized  on  all  the  abbey's 
domains,  scattered  between  Breme  and  the  Alps,  and  treated  them  as 
hereditary  property  of  his  own.  Had  not  the  Count  Palatine  of  Italy, 
Samson,  on  entering  the  order  of  St  Benedict,  practically  reendowed 
the  abbey,  the  monks  must  have  starved  or  dispersed  ^  The  facts  that 
Lothar's  precept  had  been  so  misused,  and  that  it  had  been  granted 
without  the  advice  of  the  magnates,  were  employed  at  the  Empress* 
request,  as  grounds  for  quashing  it.  Otto  publicly  burnt  it  and  granted 
a  diploma  of  safeguard  to  the  Abbot.  But  it  was  only  effectual  during 
his  presence  in  Italy.  Directly  he  left  the  country  in  965,  Ardoin  again 
took  possession  of  the  abbey  demesnes.  There  was  no  one  to  prevent 
him ;  Abbot  Belegrim,  although  a  holy,  learned  man,  was  a  child  in  all 
things  of  this  world,  we  are  told^,  and  was  easily  frightened  into  taking 
an  oath  never  to  complain  to  the  Emperor  again  ^  With  singular  want 
of  foresight  on  Ardoin's  part,  nothing  was  said  about  the  Pope,  and 
fortunately  Belegrim's  wail  to  the  latter — John  XIII  it  was — has  come 
down  to  us.  It  does  not  appear  to  have  been  dispatched  till  972,  for 
on  the  2 1  St  April  of  that  year  there  was  sent  out  a  Papal  Bull  and  on 
the  ist  May  an  imperial  diploma,  safeguarding  the  monastery.  These 
documents  seem  to  have  been  ineffectual,  for  we  hear  that  on  Belegrim's 
death  c.  974  Ardoin  appointed  a  new  Abbot,  who  ruled  two  years  with- 
out obtaining  consecration.     The  obvious  comment  is  that  Ardoin  was 

1  "  .Siquidem  tanta  est  feritas...maichionis,  ut  nemo  nostrum  permanere  potest  in 
eodem  loco,  quia  omnes  cortes  vicosque  et  cuncta  oppida,  de  quibus  victus  et  vestitus 
nobis  veniebat,  totamque  meliorem  caenobii  terram,  cum  famulis  eidem  pertinentibus, 
abstulit  nobis. ..Et  nisi  fuisset  quidam  vir.. .Samson  nomine,  qui...sumpsit  habitum 
sacre  religionis,  concedens  huic  loco  non  minima  (sic)  portionem  suae  possessionis, 
minime  liaberemus,  unde  spacium  duorum  mensium  vivere  quivissemus."  Abbot 
Belegrim's  letter,  Mon.  Naval.  11.  287-8. 

2  "Non  satis  cautus  que  secularibus  sunt,  scientia  litterarum  sciolus,  sed  ignarus 
omnium  que  hujus  seculi  sunt,"  Chron.  Noval.  v.  7  [Mon.  Nov.  11.  248). 

■*  "  Compulit  abbati  promittere  promissionem  indignissimam,  quod  deinceps  non 
proclamaret  se  ante  aliquam  imperatoris  presentiam  de  tali  facto."  Abbot  Belegrim's 
letter,  Mon.  Noval.  II.  289. 


Ardoin   III   and  Otto  the  Great  145 

not  high  in  imperial  favour  in  962.  Yet  Otto's  rebuke  in  972  during 
his  second  expedition,  which  seems  to  have  had  no  effect,  is  very  mild 
in  tone'. 

Again,  it  is  in  966  that  Ardoin  first  appears  as  Count  of  Pavia'^, 
which  does  not  indicate  distrust  of  him ;  and  it  is  noticeable  that  the 
Bishop  of  Turin  receives  no  immunity  from  the  Emperor.  It  seems 
clear  that  the  real  power  of  the  Marquess  was  not  to  be  diminished.  If 
on  the  20th  May  969  Bishop  Rozo  of  Asti  had  his  immunity  made 
absolute  and  the  circuit  of  his  districtum  over  the  city  extended  from 
two  miles  to  four^,  yet  in  the  April  preceding  Ardoin  and  his  sons  had 
obtained  an  imperial  diploma  for  their  possessions'*.  In  short  Otto  was 
not  inchned  to  damage  the  power  of  the  border-Marquess,  who  was 
necessary  to  defend  Italy  from  Burgundians,  French  and  Saracens. 
What  a  scourge  the  latter  were  can  be  seen  from  the  state  of  the 
diocese  of  Alba  in  these  years.  In  969  it  was  almost  depopulated  and 
its  Bishop  Fulcard,  with  scarcely  any  inhabitants  on  whom  to  exercise 
his  pastoral  duties,  lived  the  life  of  a  peasant-farmer.  The  remedy 
proposed  by  Otto  the  Great  and  Pope  John  XIII  was  to  unite  the 
diocese  to  the  less-injured  one  of  Asti  and  in  985  the  union  was  ac- 
tually carried  out,  although  it  was  but  temporary  ^ 

Already  in  January  968  the  Emperor  was  planning  to  resume  the 
work  King  Hugh  had  abandoned  and  expel  the  Saracen  pests  from 
Freinet  and  the  Alps®.  But  his  preoccupations  in  southern  Italy  pre- 
vented his  taking  any  steps,  and  in  972  his  eagerness  to  return  to 
Germany  negatived  a  fresh  and  toilsome  campaign  I     The  matter  was 

^  Narrative,  Chrott.  Noval.  v.  3  {A/on.  Nov.  11.  246),  v.  20,  21  [Mon.  Nov.  11.  263). 
Belegrim's  letter,  Chron.  Noval.  App.  ill.  {Mon.  Nov.  11.  290,  Car.  Keg.  cmxli.)  : 
liull  and  Precept,  Moti.  Nov.  i.   109,  114). 

^  See  below,  p.  164. 

^  See  below,  p.  163,  n.  9. 

•*  See  below,  p.  148,  n.  3. 

^  See  Pope  John's  letter  (Cipolla,  Di  Rozone,   Vescovo  d' Asti,  Mem.  Accad.  Sc. 

Torino,  2.  XLII.  (1892)  p.  34),  "  Chrislianorum crimina  promerentur  ut  ab  infe- 

delibus  eorum  loca  depopulentur  quemadmodum  et  vidimus  et  audivimus  atque  in  is 
niaxime  nunc  locis  contigit  que  sunt  Fraxaeneto  vicina... Audivimus  itaque  episco- 
patum  vocabulo  Albia  adeo  a  Saracenis  esse  depopulatum  ut  episcopus  Fulchardus... 
clericis  et  plebe  careat,  viteque  cotidianos  sumptus,  non  ut  episcopus  ex  ecclesia,  sed 
ut  rusticus  habead  ex  agricultura."  See  also  Otto  the  Great's  diploma  of  969  {M.G.H. 
Dipl.  II.  880)  and  Otto  II's  of  985  {M.G.H.  Dipl.  II.  885).  The  union  of  the  two 
dioceses  was,  however,  only  temporary.  On  Bishop  Rozo  of  Asti's  death  Alba 
recovered  her  independence. 

"  Widukind,  ill.  70  {M.G.H.  Script,  ill.  464).  Kopke-Dummler,  Otto  der 
Grosse,  p.  435. 

^  Widukind,  iii.  75  {M.G.H.  Script.  III.  466).  Kopke-Diimmler,  Otto  der 
Grosse,  p.   485. 

P.  o.  10 


146  The  rise  of  the  Ardoinids  of  Turin 

left  to  local  enterprise,  and  that  was  spurred  on  by  an  event  which 
excited  the  sympathy  of  all  Christendom,  the  capture  of  St  Maiolus  of 
Cluny.  That  great  leader  of  the  Church  was  returning  in  the  summer 
of  972  from  Italy,  where  he  had  been  engaged  in  the  work  of  reforma- 
tion. His  caravan  was  unusually  large,  for  his  saintly  reputation  gave 
his  fellow-travellers  a  general  hope  of  escape  from  the  infidels'  hands. 
The  lengthy  train  of  mules  and  men  crossed  the  Great  St  Bernard 
safely,  had  reached  the  lower  defile  by  Orsieres,  and  was  involved  in 
the  sharp  turn  of  the  road  near  Sembrancher\  when  they  were  attacked 
by  the  Saracens.  The  infidels  captured  great  part  of  the  caravan,  and 
the  Saint  himself  fell  into  their  hands.  An  enormous  ransom,  1000  lbs. 
of  silver,  was  demanded  by  them  and  raised  by  the  zealous  monks  on 
his  behalf.  But  public  feeling  had  been  too  deeply  stirred  to  let  the 
nuisance  continue  longer,  and  perhaps  external  aid  was  provided  for 
the  united  movement  now  made  by  the  seigneurs  east  and  west  of  the 
Alps.  The  very  band  which  had  held  Maiolus  to  ransom  was  assaulted 
by  the  Christians  as  it  threaded  its  way  back  towards  Freinet,  blockaded 
on  some  projecting  ridge  of  the  Alps,  and  practically  exterminated". 

This  was  the  first  act  in  the  drama  of  liberation.  The  monk  of 
Novalesa  provides  us  with  an  underplot  for  the  sequel ;  and,  however 
untrue  it  may  be,  it  furnishes  evidence  of  the  cooperation  on  both  sides 
of  the  Alps,  which  rendered  the  Saracens  at  once  helpless.  The  alter- 
native routes  by  which  they  were  able  to  elude  pursuit  were  held  against 
them.  Among  the  Saracens  of  Freinet,  he  says,  was  a  certain  Aymon. 
This  man,  after  one  of  their  plundering  expeditions,  drew  for  his  share 
of  the  spoil  a  woman  of  the  captives.  But  her  beauty  was  too  great  for 
the  honour  that  is  among  thieves  to  resist.  She  was  taken  from  Aymon 
by  some  Moorish  Agamemnon.  Her  first  owner  deserted  his  mates  in 
rage,  and,  going  to  Count  Robald  of  Provence,  offered  to  guide  him 
through  the  defiles  of  mountain  and  forest,  as  we  may  suppose,  within 
the  stronghold  of  Freinet.  Thereupon  Count  Robald  sent  round  to  all 
his  neighbours,  including  Ardoin  Glabrio,  begging  their  aid  in  some  ex- 
pedition, the  object  and  nature  of  which  he  concealed.  In  spite  of 
such  indefiniteness,  they  all  assembled  at  his  call,  and  were  led,  not 
knowing  where  they  were  riding,  along  the  forest-paths  within  Freinet. 
Robald  then  addressed  his  bold  comrades  with  great  dramatic  effect. 

^  Syrus,  Vit.  S.  Maioli,  in.  i  {M.G.H.  Script,  iv.),  "Ad  hunc  igitur  locum 
[Orsieres]  cum  sine  discrimine  venissent  eundemque  rivulum  [Drance]  transissent, 
mox  inter  ipsos  actae  viae  difficiles  reflexus,  qui  parvo  intervallo  se  praebent 
descendentibus,  subito  eos  invasit...Sarracenorum  exercitus."  I  presume  this  means 
tlie  reflexus  close  by  Sembrancher. 

2  Syrus,  Vit.  S.  Maioli,  iii.  1-7  (M.G.H.  Script,  iv. ).  See  Poupardin,  Bourgogne, 
pp.  97-101. 


The  expulsion  of  the  Saracens  147 

"  Brothers,"  he  said,  "  fight  for  your  souls,  for  you  are  in  the  country  of 
the  Saracens  ! "  Nor  were  his  words  vain  ;  and  an  heroic  combat  was 
followed  by  a  general  massacre.  As  for  Aymon,  his  descendants  re- 
mained in  the  land  in  the  Chronicler's  day'. 

Parts  of  the  tale  have  nothing  incredible  in  them,  although  the 
authority  is  of  very  slight  weight.  For  instance,  the  entrance  into  the 
fastnesses  of  Freinet  may  well  have  been  gained  by  treason ;  and  if 
better  authors  tell  us  that  the  chief  leader  was  Robald's  brother  Count 
William  of  Provence,  the  general  cooperation  impHed  is  almost  a 
certain  fact. 

Two  further  events  in  connection  with  the  expulsion  of  the  Moors 
are  preserved  to  memory  by  the  Novalesan  Chronicler.  One  of  them 
merely  related  the  destruction  of  S.  Andrea  monastery  at  Turin,  a 
dependency  of  Breme-Novalesa,  by  two  Saracen  captives^;  but  the 
other  is  of  the  highest  importance  for  our  main  subject,  and  in  fact  for 
the  subsequent  history  of  Italy.  The  valley  of  Susa  had  been  made  a 
desert  by  the  Moorish  ravages.  Now,  Ardoin,  with  scandalous  disre- 
gard for  the  proprietary  rights  which  the  Abbey  of  Novalesa,  transferred 
for  half  a  century  to  Breme,  possessed  over  it,  seized  on  the  whole  dis- 
trict from  the  Genevre  and  Cenis  passes  to  the  cliisa^  near  the  mouth 
of  the  defile,  and  thus  acquired  an  enormous  alod  for  his  House''.  In 
this  way  the  Italian  section  of  the  Mont  Cenis  route  came  into  the 
hands  of  the  Ardoinids.  For  the  moment  the  tolls  must  have  been  the 
chief  profit  acquired,  for  the  district  had  to  be  resettled,  and  brought 
under  proper  cultivation^  How  vigorously  the  work  was  taken  in  hand 
we  may  see  from  the  number  of  parish  churches  which  seem  to  have 
been  incorporated  in  the  diocese  of  Turin,  which  were  founded  in 
these  closing  years  of  the  tenth  century  by  Ardoin  III  and  his  de- 
scendants ^ 

1  Chron.  Noval.  v.  i8  (Cipolla,  Mon.  Noval.  ii.  260).  For  Aymon  the  Saracen, 
see  above,  pp.  iii,  113.  The  identification  of  the  Frascenedellum  of  Chron.  Noval. 
with  the  well-known  Freinet  of  Provence  seems  guaranteed  by  the  whole  course  of 
the  story.  Else  why  should  the  Count  of  Provence  be  the  chief  person  involved  ? 
Cf.  Poupardin,  Bourgogne,  p.  loi.  The  date  of  this  war  should  be  c.  972-5  (id. 
p.  99,  n.  3).  For  other  views,  however,  see  Patrucco,  /  Saraceni  nelle  Alpi  occidentali 
{B.S.S.S.  XXXII.  pp.  430-1). 

2  Chron.  Noval.  V.  i  (Cipolla,  Mon.  Nov.  11.  243). 

^  See  Car.  Reg.  LXXVI.  (Cipolla,  Carte  di  S.  Giusto  (Bull.  Istit.  stor.  ital.  18), 
p.  61),  where  the  last  village  of  the  valley-domain  is  Vayes. 

^  Chron.  Noval.  v.  19  (Cipolla,  Mon.  Noval.  11.  262),  "  In  his  ergo  temporibus, 
cum  vallis  Segusina  inermem  et  inhabitatam  permaneret,  Ardoinus,  vir  potens,  eripit 
illam  et  nobis  (tul)it." 

5  Cf.  Patrucco,  I  Saraceni  ecc.  (B.S.S.S.  xxxii.),  p.  433. 

*  Collino,  Carte... d^Oiilx  (B.S.S.S.  xlv.),  p.  172,  "quod  predecessores  Adelasie 
comitisse  de  suo,  viz.  inter  ceteras  ecclesias  quaruni  fundatores  in  plebanatu  Secusie 


148  The  rise  of  the  Ardoinids  of  Turin 

The  Saracen  war  is  the  last  fact  we  hear  of  the  Ufe  of  Ardoin 
Glabrio.  He  is  not  likely  to  have  much  outHved  976  when  he  was  still 
Count  of  Pavia.  According  to  our  indignant  Chronicler  his  character 
was  as  black  as  his  wealth  was  great.  But  the  monks  of  Novalesa 
could  hardly  be  trusted  to  give  a  fair  account  of  their  grasping  op- 
pressor^  By  an  unrecorded  wife^  he  had  had  certainly  three  sons  and 
probably  two  daughters.  The  sons  ^  are  Marquess  Manfred  I,  Marquess 
Oddo  I,  and  Marquess  Ardoin  IV.  The  presumed  daughters  are 
Ychilda  and  Anselda,  to  whom  we  should  perhaps  add  a  nameless 
third. 

We  may  take  these  personages  in  order.  Manfred  I  ^  was  the  hus- 
band of  Prangarda,  who  was  only  daughter  of  Atto^  of  Canossa  and 
sister  of  Tedald,  first  Marquess  of  Tuscany  of  the  Canossan  line.  She 
was  a  wealthy  bride  and  brought  with  her  a  great  dower  in  the  counties 
of  Parma  and  Reggio  round  about  Traversetolo  and  Canossa.     It  is 

fuerunt  hanc  ecclesiam  de  Bruxolio...in  predio  suo  fundaverunt  cum  istis  aliis,  primo 
predicta  ecclesia  Beate  Marie  de  Secusia,  de  Exiliis,  de  Caumontio,  de  Gelone,  de 
Maticis,  de  Bozoleto,  de  Cannusso,  de  S.  Georgio,  de  S.  Desiderio,  de  Villario 
Fulchardo  et  de  Fraxineriis." 

^  "Tantum  igitur  erat  plenus  viciis  quantum  et  diviciis.  Superbia  tumidus,  camis 
suae  voluptatibus  subditus,  in  adquirendis  rebus  alienis  avariciae  facibus  succensus" 
(Chron.  No7)al.  V.  19  :  Cipolla,  Mon.  Noz'al.  II.  262). 

-  Count  di  Vesme  (/  Conti  di  Verona,  Nuovo  Arch.  Veneto,  Anno  vi.  Tomo  XI. 
277-84)  argiies  that  Ardoin  III  probably  married  a  sister  of  Milo,  Count  of  Verona, 
930-55,  and  of  Manfred,  Count  of  Lomello,  since  this  would  give  a  reason  for  the 
name  Manfred  of  his  son,  and  for  his  great-granddaughter,  Countess  Adelaide's, 
possession  of  half  Mosezzo  in  io6r  (Car.  Reg.  CLViii.),  whereas  the  other  half  in  962 
was  in  possession  of  Egelric,  son  of  Manfred  of  Lomello  (Car.  Reg.  viii.-ix.  and  see 
above,  p.  137).  The  Marquesses  of  Romagnano,  also  descending  from  Ardoin 
Glabrio,  had  lands  in  1040  in  the  Novarese  and  \^ercellese  (Car.  Reg.  cxxi.,  Carte 
del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  ill.  2,  p.  181). 

^  Was  there  another?  Tristan  Calchi,  Mediolan.  Hist. pair.  lib.  VI.  118,  states 
under  969:  "Otto...dum  Cassiani  moratur  concedit  Arduino,  inclyto  marchioni  et 
Adam  et  Amico  et  Manfredo  et  Odoni  possessionem  legitimam  earum  rerum  atque 
urbium  quae  jam  in  Italia  obtinebant."  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  existence  of 
this  diploma.  A  precisely  similar  one  was  issued  April  969  at  Cassiano  to  Ingo  and 
his  sons.  See  Bresslau,  op.  cit.  11.  372,  n.  4.  As  for  Adam  et  Amico,  it  would  be 
attractive  to  think  of  a  corruption  of  Ardoin  IV  who  would  thus  be  eldest  son ;  but 
Pere  Savio  (C/j  antichi  vescovi,  p.  332)  has  pointed  out  that  Amico  [leg.  Amizo)  is  a 
diminutive  of  Adam,  and  that  we  should  read  "Adam  qui  et  Amizo"  as  in  other 
charters  of  an  Adam-Amizo.  Curiously  enough  an  Adam-Amizo  appears  as  Bishop  of 
Turin  c.  989-99  (Savio,  op.  cit.  pp.  330-5).  Was  he  Glabrio's  son?  Unless 
Ardoin  IV  was  accidentally  omitted  by  Calchi,  he  should  be  dead  at  the  date  of  the 
diploma. 

■*  Car.  Reg.  LXXVi.  (Cipolla,  Carte  S.  Giusto  etc.  (Bull.  Islit.  stor.  ital.  18),  p.  61) 
etc.  and  above,  p.  136,  n.  ii. 

*  See  above,  p.  137,  n.  8  and  p.  142;  also  Anselm.  Peripatetic.  Rhetoritnachia, 
ed.  Diimmler,  p.  37,  "  Tedaldo...soror...unica." 


Ardoin  Ill's  children  149 

through  her  inheritance  that  we  know  her  name  for  we  possess  the 
charter  in  which  she  and  her  husband  sold  it  to  the  deacon  Raimbald 
of  Borgo  S.  Donnino  for  forty  pounds  of  silver  in  991  ^  If  we  are  to 
trust  the  Novalesan  Chronicler  they  were  already  married  in  951,  but  we 
may  reasonably  doubt  the  evidence  ^  Six  sons  are  known  to  us  of  the 
marriage,  Ulric-Manfred,  Alric,  Oddo,  Hugh,  Guido  and  Azzo,  whom  I 
will  deal  with  when  their  generation  comes  on  the  staged  Their  father 
Manfred  I  was  dead  by  31  July  looi'*. 

Ardoin  IV  seems  to  have  left  no  trace  behind.  Perhaps  he  died 
without  issue ^. 

Marquess  Oddo  I,  on  the  other  hand,  was  the  founder  of  a  long  and 
illustrious  line,  the  Marquesses  of  Romagnano,  junior  branch  of  the 
Ardoinids.  Of  his  personal  activity  we  have  a  little  evidence.  He  sold 
in  996  the  land  he  had  from  his  father  at  Pavone  in  the  Lomellina®, 
and  he  founded  the  priory  of  PoUenzo,  near  Bra,  under  Novalesa- 
Breme'.  By  an  unnamed  wife  he  left  a  son  Ardoin  V^;  he  was  cer- 
tainly dead  by  1000,  and  probably  by  998^  His  foundation  at  Pollenzo 
may  be  regarded  as  inaugurating  a  new  movement  in  Piedmont,  in 
which  religious  fervour,  directed  more  or  less  from  Cluny,  and  practical 
policy  went  hand  in  hand-  The  great  lords  of  the  soil  saw  more  and 
more  the  advantage  of  settling  monks  on  the  less  usable  lands  of  their 


^  Aff6,  Storia  eccles.  di  Parma,  i.  369.  Atto  is  styled  Adelbertus  marchio,  being 
his  formal  name  and  a  title  unattested  for  his  lifetime,  though  it  is  likely  he  had  it. 
He  was  Count  of  Reggio,  Modena,  and  Mantua. 

^  See  above,  p.  137,  n.  8,  pp.  142-3  and  p.  143,  n.  4. 

*  See  below,  pp.  165-6,  and  all  Section  in.  for  Ulric-Manfred  and  Alric. 

^  On  that  date  Otto  Ill's  diploma  (Car.  Reg.  XXII.  M.G.H.  Dipl.  11.  841)  to  his 
son  Ulric-Manfred.     See  below,  pp.  151,  167-8. 

*  See  Car.  Reg.  Lxxvi.  (above,  p.  148,  n.  4) ;  Bresslau,  op.  cit.  11.  363,  who  points 
out  that  chronology  is  against  his  being  father  of  the  two  first  Romagnano  (see  below, 
p.  176,  n.  3).  Similarly  it  is  not  likely  he  was  father  of  Ychilda  or  Anselda.  Signor 
di  Vesme  {Studi  Pinerolesi,  B.S.S.S.  I.  4,  n.  2)  assigns  to  him  the  references  to  Ardoin, 
Count  of  Pavia  in  966  and  976,  and  thus  a  son  Oddo  in  996,  father  of  Gualdrada,  who 
appears  in  1029  (Tiraboschi,  Nonatitiila,  il.  159,  160),  but  there  seems  no  pressing 
reason  for  this  subdivision,  and  Gualdrada  may  be  daughter  of  an  Aleramid  Oddo 
(Bresslau,  op.  cit.  11.  391). 

«  Car.  Reg.  xix.  (M.H.P.  Cod.  Dipl.  Langob.  1595). 

'  Car.  Reg.  CMXL.  (Chron.  Noval.  v.  25,  CipoUa,  Mon.  Noval.  il.  269),  Mon. 
Noval.  I.  123,  Car.  Reg.  xxxix.  (Mon.  Noval.  I.  134).  This  was  between  992 
and  998. 

*  See  Car.  Reg.  Lxxvi.  (see  above,  p.  148,  n.  4).  That  Ardoin  V  is  son  of 
Oddo  I  is  shown  by  the  narrative  in  Chron.  Noval.  App.  IX.  {Mon.  Noval.  II.  295) ; 
of.  below,  pp.  181-2. 

®  Ardoin  already  owns  land  at  Montaldo,  December  looi  (Gabotto,  Le  piu 
antiche  carte... d'' Asti,  B.S.S.S.  xxviii.  p.  245,  while  the  story  of  the  foundation 
of  Chiusa  shows  him  holding  court  at  Avigliana  c.  1000.     See  below,  p.   180. 


150  The  rise  of  the  Ardoinids  of  Turin 

vacant  curies.  They  would  lose  often  but  little  revenue,  if  any,  and 
not  much  hunting.  Round  those  diligent  foundations  population  grew, 
and  the  cultivation  of  the  soil  was  systematically  advanced.  By  infec- 
tion, so  to  say,  the  land  round  became  richer  in  beasts,  corn  and  men  ; 
the  concourse  of  travellers  increased ;  abbeys  were  founded  on  the 
pilgrim-routes  at  convenient  intervals ;  and  at  first  the  great  lords  could 
count  on  gratitude  and  moral,  and  even  material,  support,  from  their 
foundations  in  return  for  protection.  It  was  none  so  unlike  the  rela- 
tionship of  the  German  Ottos  and  their  prince-bishops  \ 

The  two  daughters  of  Ardoin  Glabrio  are  fairly  well  attested.  First 
there  is  Ychilda,  who  appears  in  987  and  989^  as  wife  of  Conrad, 
Marquess  of  Ivrea,  that  son  of  Berengar  11  who  had  made  his  peace 
with  Otto  and  had  been  restored  to  the  remnants  of  his  father's  mark. 
The  second  is  Anselda,  who  married  Giselbert,  Count  of  the  Palace,  by 
whom  she  had  three  sons  and  two  daughters,  Ardoin,  Lanfranc,  both 
Counts  of  the  Palace,  and  Manfred,  Richilda,  wife  of  Boniface,  Mar- 
quess of  Tuscany,  and  Gisela,  wife  of  Hugh,  an  Otbertine  Marquess^ 
These  intermarriages  show  clearly  the  close  connections  the  Marquesses 
of  Upper  Italy  kept  up  among  themselves.  In  fact  at  this  time  their 
interests  were  not  diverse,  to  hold  aloof  the  distant  German  ruler,  to 
control  the  bishoprics  and  to  keep  down  the  lesser  nobles,  their  vassals, 
as  well  as  the  upstart  citizens.  They  were  not  successful  indeed  in  the 
long  run.  The  close  of  the  eleventh  century  found  them  fallen  and 
localized,  and  not  so  easily  distinguished  from  the  other  immediate 
vassals  of  the  crown. 

A  third  daughter  of  Ardoin  Glabrio  is  perhaps  to  be  seen  in  the 
mother  of  King  Ardoin  of  Ivrea.  The  latter  succeeded  to  the  Mark  of 
Ivrea  about  990,  and  his  son  Ardicino  was  already  of  full  age  in  1000 ; 
thus  he  was  coeval  with,  but  somewhat  older  than  the  sons  of  Giselbert 
and  Anselda.  But  the  only  real  ground  for  the  hypothesis  consists 
in  the  name  Ardoin,  which  we  do  not  know  to  be  borne  by  the 
(probably)  Anscarid  ancestors  of  King  Ardoin.  If  it  is  true  that  Count 
Dado,  the  father  of  King  Ardoin,  was  married  to  an  Ardoinid  Countess, 
it  would  of  course  be  another  illustration  of  the  close  inter-connection 
of  the  great  vassals^. 

1  See  VdXuxcco,  I  Saraceni  ecc.  (B.S.S.S.  xxxil.),  pp.  433-5  ;  cf.  Bollea,  Le  Prime 
relazioni  fra  la  casa  di  Savoia  e  Ginevra  (926-1 2 11), 

2  Car.  Reg.  xvi.  (Provana,  Studi  Critici  sul  re  Ardoino,  p.  327),  and  Car. 
Reg.  XVII. 

3  See  Terraneo,  Adelaide... illustrata,  Pt  I.  Cap.  XXII.,  Bresslau,  op.  cit.  11,  436, 
and  Pivano,  Stato  e  Ckiesa,  p.  222,  n.  3.  Ardoin  Count  Palatine  was  functioning  in 
996  and  1019.  See  Pivano,  loc.  cit.  It  does  not  seem  necessary  to  go  into  details 
over  these  cognates. 

*  See  Carutti,  Umberto  Biancamano  e  il  re  Ardoino,  pp.  253-6.     The  suggested 


Did  the  Ardoinids  practise  primogeniture?      151 

Ardoin  Glabrio's  position  is  an  easy  one  to  define.  He  was  Mar- 
quess ruling  a  coagulation  of  counties,  and  possessed  of  wide-strewn 
alods  and  benefices ;  he  guarded  an  important  strip  of  the  frontier,  thus 
being  an  etymological  Marquess  as  well  as  a  titular  one.  But  did  his 
son  succeed  to  this  position  ?  It  was  not  quite  a  matter  of  course  that 
he  should.  In  fact  a  non-Ardoinid,  Bernard,  now  appears  as  Count  of 
Pavia  in  succession  to  Glabrio.  But  in  his  case  there  were  special 
circumstances  involved ^  A  more  important  cause  of  disintegration 
was  the  Italian  habit  of  treating  benefice  and  office  as  private  property, 
and  either  retaining  it  in  compossession  or  subdividing  among  all 
agnates,  as  would  naturally  be  done  with  the  alods.  Against  this 
custom  the  Emperors,  we  may  presume,  would  only  strive  intermittently 
when  it  happened  to  be  to  their  advantage  to  preserve  the  power  of 
some  family  from  extinction  by  such  a  subdivision  of  the  inheritance. 
A  similar  exceptional  course  might  be  taken  by  private  arrangement 
within  the  family  itself. 

Instances  of  both  extreme  courses  are  known.  Absolute  equality  in 
inheritance  and  consequent  disintegration  of  their  "  mark "  is  found 
among  the  Aleramids  of  Montferrat,  Vasto,  etc.'  On  the  other  hand, 
Marquess  Tedald,  the  Canossan,  established  absolute  primogeniture  in 
his  house,  his  younger  son  not  even  having  the  title  of  Marquess  or 
Count'*.  We  require  therefore  particular  information  as  to  which 
pattern  the  Ardoinids  followed. 

First  as  regards  the  actual  lands  of  the  family,  the  earliest  informa- 
tion we  possess  is  contained  in  Car.  Reg.  xxii.^  and  lxiv.^,  which  are 
imperial  confirmations,  dated  looi  and  c.  1026  respectively,  of  the 
possessions  of  Ulric-Manfred  and  his  cousins  Boso  and  Guido,  sons  of 
Ardoin  V  *.  From  these  we  should  be  able  to  get  some  idea  of  the 
principles  of  inheritance,  if  not  something  more.  It  is  very  noticeable 
that  the  land  seems  to  be  owned  largely  in  thirds.  Both  branches  own 
the  third  part  of  Avigliana,  of  Revello,  of  S.  Stefano.     We  are  reminded 

identification  of  King  Ardoin,  son  of  Dado,  with  Ardoin  V,  son  of  Oddo,  is  impossible, 
since  Ardoin  V  is  c.  1013  on  good  terms  with  the  Pope  and  goes  to  Rome  (see  below, 
p.  181). 

^  It  seems  likely  Bernard  was  removed  for  rebellion  c.  965  and  restored  c.  June 
976  after  Ardoin's  death.  See  Pivano,  Stato  e  Chiesa,  pp.  193-4,  and  below, 
p.   164. 

"^  See  Bresslau,  op.  cit.  i.  408-13,  Desimoni,  Suite  viarche  cf  Italia,  Atti  Soc.  Lig. 
per  la  storia  patria,  xxvin.  Letters  i.  and  II. 

^  Bresslau,  op.  cit.  I.  434-5. 

*  M.G.H.  Dipl.  II.  841.  There  was  a  diploma  also  of  Conrad  II  to  Ulric-Manfred 
c.  1026,  but  it  is  now  lost.     Bresslau,  op.  cit.  i.  376,  n.  3.     Terraneo,  op.  cit.  11.  120. 

5  M.G.H.  Dipl.  IV.  83. 

®  See  below,  pp.  176-7. 


152  The  rise  of  the  Ardoinids  of  Turin 

at  once  that  Ardoin  III  had  three  sons  and  look  about  for  descendants 
of  the  third  son  who  should  have  a  third  share,  although  we  are  some- 
what embarrassed  between  Adam  qui  et  Amizo  and  Ardoin  IV.  But 
then,  one  branch  will  have  a  third  part,  while  the  other  has  not.  Thus 
Ulric-Manfred  has  a  third  of  the  Val  di  Susa  and  Turin,  while  Boso 
and  Guido  have  only  Susa  castle,  a  house  at  Turin  and  an  indefinite 
part  of  its  champaign.  Boso  and  Guido  have  a  third  of  Romanisio, 
Ulric-Manfred  none.  Some  of  this  may  be  due  to  the  fact  that  Ulric- 
Manfred  had  brothers,  who  would  have  their  shares,  but  that  does  not 
explain  Boso  and  Guido's  lack  of  their  thirds.  Besides  Bishop  Alric, 
and  no  other  brother  of  Ulric- Manfred's,  intervenes  in  almost  all  the 
latter's  grants,  the  foundation  of  Caramagna  (see  below,  p.  183)  being 
the  chief  exception.  This  looks  as  if  these  two  brothers  remained  in 
compossession,  while  the  others  took  separate  shares.  Finally,  as  to 
several  places,  both  branches  seem  to  claim  all.  Much  we  may  attri- 
bute to  careless  grammar  in  the  drafts,  which  the  grantees  sent  into  the 
imperial  chancery,  but  there  remains  the  case  of  Vigone  and  Pallantum, 
the  whole  of  which  is  confirmed  expressly  to  Ulric-Manfred,  and  yet, 
although  not  with  the  word  "totum,"  also  to  Guido  and  Boso\ 

Without  venturing  to  be  too  definite  on  so  difficult  a  subject,  per- 
haps one  may  conclude  that  there  was  no  primeval  division  into 
"ideal"  thirds  among  the  sons  of  Ardoin  Glabrio,  but  an  actual  division 
of  property  by  arrangement,  which  would  occasion  often  the  sharing 
of  single  curtes.  In  support  I  may  quote  the  fact  that  Ardoin  V  ap- 
pears as  sole  owner  of  Chiusa  in  looo^  On  this  view  the  places  which 
seem  to  be  confirmed  undivided  to  both  branches  may  be  exceptional 
cases  of  ideal  compossession. 

In  these  two  diplomas  we  may  notice  a  difference  in  the  rights  con- 
ceded. Ulric-Manfred  is  styled  marchio,  Boso  and  Guido  have  no 
title;  Ulric-Manfred  receives  a  confirmation  of  considerable  immunity^, 
Boso  and  Guido  a  simple  confirmation  of  property*.  On  the  other 
hand  Oddo  II,  Ulric-Manfred's  brother,  fixes  a  penalty  for  any  infringe- 
ment of  a  grant  of  land  in  Turin  county  made  by  him  to  St  Peter's 
Monastery  at  Turing    In  titles  there  is  a  similar  inconsistency.    Oddo  I 

1  Curiously  enough  in  1029  Ulric-Manfred  gives  all  Vigone  to  S.  Giusto  di  Susa 
(Car.  Reg.  Lxxvi.  CipoUa,  Carte  di  S.  Giusto,  Boll.  Istit.  stor,  ital.  18,  p.  61). 

^  See  below,  p.  180. 

^  "  Cum... omnibus  mercatis  atque  dictriccionibus  ad  easdem  cortes  pertinentibus 
...cum  teloneis  atque  angariis  universisque  redicionibus  in  integrum... jubemus...ut 
nullus  dux  etc....prelibatum  Odelricum...molestare  inquietare  per  placita  fatigare 
presumat." 

^  "  Confirmamus  ut  nullus  archiepiscopus  etc....prescriptum  Bosonem  suosque 
heredes  de  predictis  rebus  disvestire  vel  molestare  presumat." 

''  Car.  Reg.  XLli.  (1016).     (See  below,  p.  153,  n.  9.) 


Did  the  Ardoinids  practise  primogeniture?      153 

in  a  public  placitum  (996)  before  the  imperial  missus  is  described  as 
comes,  but  his  father  is  itemque  marchio,  which  looks  as  if  Oddo  were 
commonly,  but  not  officially,  styled  so^  In  looi  his  son  Ardoin  V 
is  styled  marchio  in  a  deed  I  Both  are  marchio  in  the  Novalesan 
Chronicle^,  and  in  Benedict  VIII's  bull  of  1114^  But  in  Emperor 
Henry  II's  diploma  (1014)  for  Fruttuaria,  Ardoin  V  is  untitled^  Yet 
in  Conrad  II's  precept  to  Breme^  both  father  and  son  are  marchio  and 
in  the  c  1026  diploma  to  Boso  and  Guido  their  father  Ardoin  V  has 
the  style  of  marchio''.  Ulric-Manfred's  brother  Oddo  II  is  styled  comes 
in  Henry  II's  diploma  of  1014^  but  calls  himself  marchio  in  his  own 
diploma  of  1016^.  Then  about  1029  Ulric-Manfred's  other  brother 
Guido  is  called  7narchio  by  his  daughter  Prangarda '",  and  it  is  he 
probably  who  receives  the  same  title  in  the  Novalesan  Chronicle  ^^  An 
Oddo  marchio,  who  is  most  probably  Oddo  II,  is  also  mentioned  in  a 
private  diploma^":  while  at  the  foundation  of  S.  Giusto  in  1029  Ulric- 
Manfred  gives  no  title  to  his  brothers,  uncles,  grandfather  or  cousin 
Ardoin  V".  Ulric  of  Romagnano  in  1040  calls  himself  and  his  late 
father  Guido  (Ardoin  Vs  son)  marchio^^:  and  about  the  same  time  Ar- 
doin V  receives  the  title  in  a  diploma  of  the  Emperor  Henry  IIP^ 
Adelaide  and  her  sister  Immilla  are  both  called  comitissa^^,  which  has 
some  relevance  to  the  subject,  for  they  could  not  formally  bear  the  title 
of  Marchioness,  Marquess  being  only  a  male  title  in  the  Ardoinid 
House. 

These  are  instances  of  the  titles ;  we  find  the  Mark  itself  described 
as  an  entity,  which  is  granted  to  Ulric-Manfred's  son-in-law  Herman  of 
Swabia  by  Conrad  IP'';    which  agrees  with  Adelaide's  preponderant 

1  Car.  Reg.  XIX.  [M.H.P.  Cod.  Dipl.  Langob.  1595). 
^  Gabotto,  Le pill  aittiche  carte... d'Asti,  B.S.S.S.  xxviil.  p.  245. 
^  Car.  Reg.  CMXL.  {Chron.  Noval.  V.  25,  CipoUa,  Mon.  Nov.  Ii.  269)  and  Chron. 
Noval.  App.  IX.  {Mon.  Nov.  11.  295). 

■*  Car.  Reg.  xxxix.  {Mo7i.  Nov.  i.  134). 

*  Car.  Reg.  xxxviii.  {M.G.H.  Dipl.  in.  379,  M.G.H.  Dipl.  iv.  423). 

*  M.G.H.  Dipl.  IV.  71.  ''  Car.  Reg.  Lxiv.  (p.  151,  n.  5). 
8  Car.  Reg.  xxxviii.  (above,  n.  5). 

*  Car.  Reg.  XLII.  (Muletti,  Alemorie  storico-diplo7natiche...di  Saluzzo,  I.  148). 
'"  Di  Vesme,  Le  origini  della  feiidalita  nel  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  i.  p.  8,  n.  i. 
^^   Chron.  A^oval.  V.  32  (Mon.  Nov.  II.  271-2). 

1'^  C&r.  Reg.  cm.  {M.H.P.  Chart.  11.  123),  civ.  [Carle  del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S. 
III.   2,  p.   179). 

13  Car.  Reg.  LXXVi.  (Cipolla,  Carte  S.  Giusto,  Bull.  Istit.  stor.  ital.  18,  p.  61). 

"  Car.  Reg.  cxxi.  {Carte  del  Pinerolese,  fi.S.S.S.  in.  2,  p.  181). 

"  Car.  Reg.  cxxvi.  (D'Achery,  Spiiilegiuw,  ed.  11.  in.  386). 

1'  Adelaide  passif/i  in  her  own  documents,  for  Immilla,  e.g.,  Cartario  di  Pinerolo, 
B.S.S.S.  II.  p.  332. 

1^  Herimann.  Augien.  1036  {M.G.H.  Script,  v.  122),  "  Herimannus...marchani 
soceri  sui  Meginfredi  in  Italia  ab  imperatore  accepit." 


154  The  rise  of  the  Ardoinids  of  Turin 

position  7ns-a-vis  with  her  sisters.  Then  the  documents  of  the  House 
seem  to  show  some  sort  of  primacy  vested  in  its  head.  The  first  of 
these  is  the  foundation  of  the  nunnery  of  Caramagna  by  Ulric-Man- 
fred^  in  1028.  The  new  Abbey  is  exempted  from  episcopal  jurisdiction 
and  its  rule  is  reserved  to  Manfred  and  his  wife  with  a  long  entail. 
First  its  government  was  to  go  to  such  daughter  or  granddaughter,  who 
would  be  willing  to  be  Abbess,  i.e.  who  would  take  the  office  as  her 
share  in  the  family  inheritance ;  but,  if  such  daughter,  etc.,  would  not, 
then  to  any  son  who  should  survive,  then  to  his  daughters  in  order  of 
age,  then  to  the  next  generation,  his  grandsons,  first  by  male,  then  by 
female  descent  in  order  of  age,  then  to  his  granddaughters  in  order  of 
age,  and  so  on^.  The  second  document  is  the  foundation  of  S.  Giusto 
di  Susa  in  1029^  Here  too  the  rule  of  the  exempted  Abbey  is  reserved 
for  the  antenaius,  major  ex  ?iatione,  for  five  generations^;  i.e.  for  the 
eldest  successively  in  each  generation  in  the  male  Une ;  but  when  the 
male  line  was  exhausted,  which  Ulric-Manfred  clearly  thought  would 
be  the  case,  to  the  eldest  successively  in  each  generation  in  the  female 
line. 

Summing  up,  then,  the  results,  we  find  as  follows  :  (i)  As  to  property 

^  Car.  Reg.  LXViii.  {Carte  di  Cara7nagtia  in  Misc.  Saluzzese,  BS.S.S.  XV.  p.  6i). 

^  "  Post  vero  amborum  nostrum  decessum  si  filia  ex  nostro  conjugio...post  mortem 
abbatisse  voluerit  esse  abbatissa,  volumus...ut  habeat  licentia  et  potestate  baculum... 
accipiendi  etc.... Similiter  de  nepta  nostra  que  de  filio  vel  filia  fuerit  relicta.  Si  vero 
easdem  personas  defuerint,  confirmamus...ut  si  filio  masculino  ex  nostro  conjugio 
fuerit  relicto,  fiat  ipsum  monasterium  in  ejus  ordinamentum,  non  ad  minuandum  nee 
ad  premium  propter  ordinationes  abbatisse  recipiendum,  vel  ad  gubemandum  et 
deffensandum  et  gratis  abbatisse  ordinandum.  Si  filio  masculino  defuerit,  filia  major 
nata  ex  nostro  conjugio  relicta  sicut  supra  de  filio  masculino  statuimus...Si  vero  major 
filia  defuerit,  sequente  ex  major  ipsam  ordinatione  similiter  recipiat,  et  sic  semper  una 
post  altera  major  nata.  ...Cum  omnes  filios  et  filias  ipsarum  defuerint,  nepus  major  ex 
filio  nostro  nato  eodem  recipiat  ordinamento...quando  defuerit,  nepus  ea  filia  nostra 
qui  majus  fuerit  ex  nacionem  abeat  ipsam  ordinationem  etc."  I  take  it  (but  with 
some  hesitation)  that  the  phrase  major  ex  nacione  means  elder  in  age  (much  the  same 
as  major  natus)  ;  it  is  the  eldest  of  all  the  grandsons  in  the  female  line  who  succeeds 
the  son's  son.     The  extraordinary  Romance  grammar  of  these  texts  will  be  noticed. 

^  Car.  J?eg.  lxxvi.  (Cipolla,  Le  piii  antiche  carte  di  S.  Giusto,  Boll.  Istit.  stor. 
ital.  18,  p.  61). 

*  "  Post  vero  omnium  nostrorum  decessum,  si  filius  masculinus,  ex  nostro  conjugio, 
conim  supra  jugales,  fuerit  relictus,  sit  in  ante  nato,  gratis  dandum  ipsum  ordina- 
mentum, hoc  est  abbatem  constituendum.  Et  post  priorem  in  secundo  etc.... Si  vero 
defuerint  filii  masculini,  et  nepotes  vel  pronipotes  similiter  masculini  relicti  fuerint... 
sicut  de  filiis  statutum  habemus,  ita  et  hisdem  usque  in  quintum  genuculum  ordinavimus, 
ut  semper  qui  major  fuerit  ex  nacione  habeat  ipsam  ordinationem.  Quod  si  defuerint 
filii  masculini  sive  nepotes  et  pronipotes  ejusdem  sexus,  tunc  judicamus  ut  veniat  et 
sit  in  filiarum  nostrarum  corum  supra  jugalium  et  in  liberos  masculini  earum  potestate 
...non  ad  omnes  aequaliter,  set  semper  qui  vel  que  fuerit  major  ex  natione  habeat 
ipsam  ordinacionem." 


Did  the  Ardoinids  practise  primogeniture?      155 

we  find  no  trace  of  primogeniture  till  the  death  of  Ulric- Manfred,  when, 
perhaps  owing  to  imperial  pressure,  Adelaide  received  most  of  her 
father's  lands.  Of  this  there  are  forecasts  in  the  reservation  of  the 
patronage  of  Caramagna  and  S.  Giusto  to  the  senior  member  of  the 
family.  But  the  immunity  of  the  family  possessions  seems  only  granted 
by  the  Emperors  to  the  head  of  the  family  by  primogeniture.  His 
position  was  officially  exceptional,  (ii)  In  titles  we  find  in  non-imperial 
documents  and  common  parlance  all  agnates  called  Marquesses.  But 
in  imperial  documents  regarding  living  agnates  we  find  the  title  of 
fftarchio  confined  to  the  head  of  the  family.  Two  cadets  Oddo  I  and 
Oddo  II  are  called  Count  in  imperial  diplomas,  and  we  find  Oddo  II 
acting  as  Count  in  the  county  of  Turin.  The  others  have  no  title.  On 
the  other  hand  Ardoin  V  is  called  marchio  by  Conrad  II  after  his  death, 
(iii)  Lastly,  we  find  the  Mark  considered  as  an  entity  and  conferred  by 
the  Emperor  on  the  successive  husbands  of  Adelaide,  to  the  exclusion 
of  the  agnates  of  Romagnano,  who  continue  to  use,  and  eventually  get 
recognized,  the  vain  title  of  Marquess  ^ 

As  a  consequence  we  may  conclude  that  there  existed  among  the 
Ardoinids  the  usual  Italian  habit  of  subdivision,  but  the  logical  outcome 
of  this  was  definitely  checked  by  the  Emperors,  who  at  most  allowed  the 
cadets  to  become  subordinate  joint-Counts.  The  main  reason,  no  doubt, 
was  that  which  induced  them  at  first  to  restore  Ivrea  to  the  Anscarids^, 
i.e.  the  need  of  strong  local  authorities  on  the  frontier  of  the  Alps. 
Later,  the  advisability  of  counter-balancing  the  Canossan  House  would 
have  its  influence,  and,  after  the  conquest  of  Burgundy  in  1034,  the 
desire  to  maintain  a  safe  alternative  road  into  Italy  would  come  into 
play^.  It  is  not  at  all  unlikely  that  the  ambitious  Ulric-Manfred  person- 
ally entered  into  a  scheme  of  more  rigorous  primogeniture,  but  a  weaker 
form  had  long  subsisted  already'*. 

To  sum  up,  the  Ardoinids  were  among  the  last-comers  of  that 
great  immigration  of  Transalpine  officials  and  benefice-holders  who 
poured  into  Italy  in  Carolingian  times.  West  Piedmont  was  their 
earliest  sphere  of  action,  but  by  1000  a.d.  their  power  was  extended 
over  Asti  and  Alba  and  a  section  of  the  Ligurian  coast-line.  Once 
settled  they  took  place  in  quite  a  short  time  among  the  greatest  nobles. 

^  See  Bresslau,  op.  cit.  i.  379,  Carutti,  Umberto  Biancamano  e  il  re  Ardoino, 
pp.   -248-9.     Cf.   Carte  del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.   III.  2,  pp.  203  ff. 

^  Conrad,  son  of  King  Berengar  II,  was  reconciled  to  Otto  the  Great  and  received 
the  Mark  of  Ivrea. 

^  See  above,  Cap.  i.  pp.  31,  39-40,  and  100. 

*  This  is  very  nearly  the  view  expressed  by  Baron  Carutti,  Umberto  I  e  il  re 
Ardoino,  pp.  246-7.  Cf.  too  above,  p.  140,  n.  i,  on  the  character  of  the  Mark  of 
Turin,  where  the  evidence  for  the  existence  or  non-existence  of  subordinate  Counts  in 
the  Mark  is  discussed. 


156  The  rise  of  the  Ardoinids  of  Turin 

They  enjoyed  the  great  advantage  of  controlling  the  Italian  access  to 
the  Mont  Cenis  and  other  passes  leading  to  the  west,  and  their  rise  in 
importance  among  the  marchional  families,  if  at  first  delayed  by  the 
ruin  of  southern  Piedmont  at  the  hands  of  the  Saracens,  was  afterwards 
promoted  by  the  freedom  of  action  they  gained  in  its  resettlement 
and  reorganization.  Their  first  great  man  was  the  ill-reputed  Ardoin 
Glabrio,  who  added  to  their  already  vast  domains  the  Val  di  Susa,  who 
extirpated  the  Saracen  pest  and  obtained  the  title  of  Marquess.  His 
son,  Manfred  I,  maintained,  it  seems,  some  sort  of  unity  in  the  new 
Mark,  in  spite  of  the  tendency  to  subdivide  it  among  all  male  agnates. 
His  rule  is  a  time  of  recuperation  for  Piedmont,  with  the  Saracens 
destroyed,  and  the  Hungarians  quelled  by  Otto  the  Great ;  and  there 
are  signs  that  he  and  his  brother  were  realizing  their  task  of  restoring 
civilization  in  the  wretched  districts  under  their  authority.  Meantime 
their  attitude  to  the  German  rulers  of  North  Italy  was  one  of  aloof 
loyalty.  They  appeared  at  court  as  little  as  might  be,  obeyed  the 
imperial  commands  only  under  pressure,  but  yet  showed  no  signs  of 
resisting  their  authority  in  theory,  or  of  trying  to  play  the  king-maker, 
which  would  indeed  have  been  a  thankless  role  while  Conrad  of 
Burgundy  remained  firmly  attached  to  his  German  kinsmen. 

P.S.  Perhaps  I  may  here  remark  that  the  term  "  Mark  of  Susa  "  is 
completely  inaccurate  and  dates  at  earliest  from  the  fifteenth  century. 
Susa  and  its  valley  formed  a  fraction  of  the  county  of  Turin,  which  as 
we  have  seen  was  a  constituent  county  of  the  "  Mark  "  held  by  Ardoin  III 
and  Ulric- Manfred.  The  best  term  for  the  latter,  from  its  chief  town,  is 
"  Mark  of  Turin." 


APPENDIX 


The  evidence  for  the  Ardoinid  possessions. 

This  is  a  matter  of  somewhat  tedious  cataloguing  of  the  place-names 
in  deeds  of  gift  and  imperial  confirmations. 

Aurade  has  been  already  discussed  in  the  text  pp.  135-6.  In  the  county 
of  Turin  we  find  a  great  mass  of  curtes  of  the  family.  Such  are  Turin 
itself^,  S.  Mauro  di  Pulcherada^,  Sambuy-',  Orbassano"*,  Rivalta^  Avigliana*, 
Almese",  Rubiana^  Carpice^  Vinovo^",  Vol  vera",  Giaveno^-,  Coazze^^ 
Frossasco",  Buriasco^^  Pinerolo  (?)^^  Miradolo^",  the  entire  valley  of 

1  Car.  Reg.  xxii.  [M.G.H.  Dipl.  ii.  841),  xxxviii.  {M.G.H.  Dipl.  in.  379), 
LXIV.  (M.G.H.  Dipl.  IV.  83).     The  following  list  is  not  quite  complete. 

^  Now  S.  Mauro  Torinese.  Car.  Reg.  LXiv.  (see  n.  i),  Lxxvi.  (Cipolla,  Le  piu 
antiche  carte  di  S.  Giusio,  Bullet.  Istit.  stor.  ital.  18,  p.  6i,  and  Bricciole  di  star. 
Noval.,  id.  22,  p.  12). 

*  Now  Villa  Sambuy,  see  n.  2. 

*  Car.  Reg.  lxxvi.  (see  n.  2). 

^  Car.  Reg.  XLII.  (Durandi,  Pietnonte  Traspadano),  LXXVi.  (see  n.  2). 

^  Car.  Reg.  xxii.,  LXiv.  (see  n.  1). 

'  Car.  Reg.  xxii.  (see  n.  i)  and  lxxvi.  (see  n.  2). 

8  Car.  Reg.  lxxvi.  (see  n.  2). 

^  Near  Moncalieri,  Car.  Reg.  cxcix.  (Cognasso,  Carlario,  S.  Sohitore,  B.S.S.S. 
XLIV.  p.  34),  cci.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  21  and  Cognasso,  op.  cit.  p.  263). 

i»  Car.  Reg.  CXXI.  {Carte  del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  III.  2,  p.  181). 

"  Car.  Reg.  lxxvi.  (see  n.  2). 

^2  Car.  Reg.  xxil.  (see  n.  i). 

^  Car.  Reg.  cxcix.  (see  n.  9). 

^*  Car.  Reg.  cxvi.  (Cipolla,  Le  piii  antiche  carte  di  S.  Giusto  (Bullet.  Istit.  stor. 
ital.  18,  p.  84,  Bricciole  di  stor.  Noval.,  id.  22,  p.  17). 

^^  Car.  Reg.  LXix.  {Carte  del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  hi.  2,  p.  175),  CLVi.  (Guichenon, 
Preuves,  p.  14). 

1^  Car.  Reg.  CLXXIX.  {Cartario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  II.  p.  334),  cxcvii.  {id. 
p.  345),  cxcviii.  {id.  p.  348).  Count  di  Vesme  considers  that,  as  Countess  Adelaide 
did  not  give  Pinerolo  to  her  new  abbey  there  in  1064  (Car.  Reg.  CLXi.  Cart,  di 
Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  II.  p.  323)  on  its  foundation,  she  must  have  acquired  it  since  that 
date,  on  the  ground  that  a  new  monastery  was  always  given  the  locality  it  was  built 
in.  But  exceptions  are  possible;  and  at  any  rate  there  is  an  exception  in  this  case, 
since,  according  to  Signor  di  Vesme's  view,  Adelaide  would  have  placed  her  new 
foundation  in  a  curtis  she  did  not  possess,  a  very  singular  proceeding. 

'7  Car.  Reg.  LXiv.  (see  note  i). 


158      The  evidence  for  the  Ardoinid  possessions 

Fenestrelle\  Piossasco^,  Carignano^,  Vigone^  Cercenasco',  Virle®,  Pan- 
calieri^,  Macello*,  Musinasco®,  Casalgrasso ^",  Carmagnola",  Caramagna^^ 
Racconigi"  Sommariva  del  Bosco",  Villanova  Solaro^^,  and  Ceresole 
Alba^".  It  will  be  noticed  what  a  large  portion  of  the  district  between 
the  Dora  Riparia  and  the  Po  was  included  in  these  demesnes,  and  to 
them  we  must  add  Ardoin  Ill's  great  acquisition,  the  Valley  of  Susa, 
which  I  have  dealt  with  above  ^".  As  to  the  county  of  Turin,  with  the 
public  functions  thereto  attached,  it  extended  from  the  county  of 
Aurade  on  the  south  ^^  and  the  Alpine  frontier  on  the  west  to  Brandizzo, 
Leyni,  Cuorgne  and  the  water-parting  south  of  the  Val  di  Locano  on 
the  north,  and  to  Chieri  and  the  mouth  of  the  river  Oreo  on  the  east". 
The  county,  like  that  of  Aurade,  in  Ardoin   Glabrio's  time  at  least, 

^  Car.  Reg.  CLXi.  (Cart,  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  11.  p.  323).  Signor  di  Vesme  {Le 
origini  della  feudalita  nel  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  I.  pp.  79-80)  considers  that  this  valley 
was  a  recent  acquisition  of  Countess  Adelaide  in  1064,  which  she  must  have  made 
with  her  sister  Immilla  from  the  Abbey  of  Cavour,  to  which  it  was  given  by  Landulf, 
Bishop  of  Turin,  in  1037.  But  Landulf 's  charter  [Cartario  di  Cavour,  B.S.S.S.  iii.  i, 
p.  8)  only  gives  the  "  plebs  "  of  the  valley  (Pinariasca,  now  of  Fenestrelle)  with  its 
endowment,  which  has  no  necessary  identification  with  Adelaide's  property ;  and  in 
1075  Cunibert,  Bishop  of  Turin,  confirms  the  Abbey  of  Cavour's  possession  of  the 
"plebs"  [Cartario  di  Cavour,  B.S.S.S.  in.  i,  p.  33)  ;  so  it  appears  to  have  been  then 
unsold  :  nor  have  I  come  on  evidence  that  Immilla  possessed  one-half  the  valley. 
Perhaps  Adelaide  kept  half,  when  she  gave  half  to  the  Abbey  of  Pinerolo  in  1064 :  to 
give  it  at  last  in  1078  (Car.  Re^.  cxci.  \_Cartario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  \\.  p.  342]). 
It  seems  unnecessary  to  deduce  that,  because  she  did  not  give  all  in  1064,  she  only 
had  half.  But  if  Immilla,  who  was  certainly  just  dead  in  1078,  did  have  half,  there 
still  seems  lacking  evidence  for  the  purchase  from  Cavour  Abbey. 

2  Car.  Reg.  CLXi.  (see  n.  r). 

^  Car.  Reg.  CLXI.  (see  n.  i). 

*  Car.  Reg.  xxil.  (see  p.  157,  n.  i),  LXiv.  (see  p.  157,  n.  i),  Lxxvi.  (see  p.  157, 
n.  2). 

^  Car.  Reg.  xxil.  (see  p.  157,  n.  i),  Lxiv.  (see  p.  157,  n.  i). 

6  id. 

''  Car.  Reg.  cxxi.  (see  p.  157,  n.  10). 

8  Car.  Reg.  LXiv.  (see  p.  157,  n.  i). 

^  Now  part  of  Villafranca  Piemonte,  Car.  Reg.  xxii.  (p.  157,  n.  i),  LXlv. 
(p.   157,  n.    I). 

"  Car.  Reg.  cxxi.  (p.  157,  n.  10). 

"  Car.  Reg.  lxviii.  (Carte.. .di  Ca^-amagna,  B.S.S.S.  xv.  p.  61). 

12  Car.  Reg.  LXiv.  (p.  157,  n.  i),  lxviii.  (see  n.  11). 

^^  Car.  Reg.  CLXI.  (see  n.  i). 

"  Car.  Reg.  CLXXvii.  {Carte. ..di  Caramagna,  B.S.S.S.  xv.  p.  61). 

"  Car.  Reg.  LXiv.  (p.  157,  n.  1). 

18  Car.  Reg.  Lxxxv.  (cf.  Libro  Verde... d' Asti,  11.  B.S.S.S.  p.  200). 

1^  See  above,  p.  147. 

1*  See  above,  p.  135. 

1^  See  Count  di  Vesme,  Le  oj-igini  della  feudalitii  nel  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  i.  p.  6, 
n.  2,  and  cf.  for  the  boundaries  of  diocese  of  Turin,  which  included  the  two  counties 
of  Aurade  and  Turin,  Pere  Savio,   Gli  antichi  vescovi,  pp.  580-2. 


The  evidence  for  the  Ardoinid  possessions      159 

seems  to  have  been  diminished  by  few  or  no  immunities.  Even  the 
imperial  diploma  to  the  Bishop  of  Turin,  which  included  no  public 
jurisdiction,  seems  to  date  only  from  c.  981  \ 

We  may  look  on  these  two  counties,  Turin  and  Aurade,  as  the 
nucleus  of  the  "  Mark  of  Turin,"  which  certainly  appears  as  a  distinct 
entity  in  the  next  century^  There  the  Marquesses'  jurisdiction  was 
unhampered  and  little  decayed.  There  they  owned  an  overwhelming 
mass  of  demesnes.  But  the  question  next  arises  :  did  they  add  any 
other  counties  to  their  "  Mark  "  ? 

The  county  bordering  on  Aurade  to  the  south  was  Bredolo,  that  is 
the  wedge-shaped  district  which  lay,  roughly  speaking,  between  the 
Stura  di  Demonte  and  the  Tanaro.  Here  it  is  not  easy  to  find  curtes 
belonging  to  the  Ardoinids^.  Magliano  (?)■*,  Piozzo  (?)*,  the  older 
Carassone  (if  that  did  not  belong  to  the  county  of  Alba)*,  Brusapor- 
celli''  and  Boves®  are  all  that  seem  attributable  to  them^  In  fact  it  is 
possible  to  raise  doubts  whether  Bredolo  formed  a  separate  county  just 
at  this  time.  The  supposed  concession  of  it  as  a  county  to  the  Bishop 
of  Asti  by  the  Emperor  Lewis  the  Blind  in  901  rests  on  an  interpolation 
in  a  genuine  charter^";  the  name  does  not  occur  in  Ulric-Manfred's 
(Ardoin  Ill's  grandson)  list  of  the  counties  where  he  held  possessions 
in  1021",  and  Countess  Adelaide  in  1089-90  speaks  of  the  curtis,  not 
comitatus  Bredolensis,  enfeoffed  by  the  church  of  Asti  to  her^^  But 
Henry  III  in  1041  undoubtedly  conceded  it  as  a  county  to  the  see  of 

'  M.G.H.  Dipl.  II.  284.  Cf.  Pivano,  Stato  e  Ckiesa,  p.  289.  Gabotto  {Carte 
arcivescoz'ili  di  Torino,  B.S.S.S.  XXXVI.  p.  i)  argues  that  this  diploma,  if  not  a 
forgery,  has  been  interpolated,  as  e.g.  with  the  name  of  Pinerolo. 

'^  See  above,  p.    153. 

^  It  may  be,  however,  that  topographical  identifications  of  some  obscure  localities 
mentioned  in  the  charters  would  bring  out  better  results.  For  the  limits  of  Bredolo, 
see  below,  p.  160,  n.  i,  and  Durandi,  Pietnonte  Cispadano,  pp.  150-1. 

■*  Car.  Reg.  LXiv.  (see  p.  157,  n.  i). 

'  Plautium,  Car.  Reg.  xxii.,  LXiv.  (see  p.  157,  n.  i),  but  Durandi,  Piemonte 
Cispadano,  p.  205,  makes  it  Plodio  in  county  of  Savona. 

"  Now  Bastia  Mondovi,  Car.  Reg.  xciv.  (Cipolla,  Carte,  S.  Giusto,  Boll.  Istit. 
stor.  ital.    18,  p.   76). 

■^  Brusaporcelli  was  close  to  Boves ;  see  Durandi,  Piemonte  Cispadano,  p.  347. 

8  Boves,  Car.  Reg.  ccxxxv.  (Sella,  Cod.  Ast.  Malabayla,  III.  p.  747). 

*  But  the  pannage  or  pig-feeding  possessed  by  them  from  R.  Stura  to  the  sea 
(Car.  Reg.  xciv.,  see  n.  6)  shows  perhaps  that  a  few  of  their  curtes  covered  a  great 
deal  of  woodland  territory.  I  leave  out  later  acquisitions,  which  can  be  shown  to 
be  such. 

^^  See  Schiaparelli,  I  diplomi  di  Lodovico  III,  Boll.  Istit.  stor.  ital.  29,  pp.  188-96, 
and  Pivano,  Stato  e  Chiesa,  p.  59,  n.  4. 

"  Car.  Reg.  L.  {Carte  del  Pincrolese,  B.S.S.S.  ill.  2,  p.  172). 

'■•^  Car.  Reg.  ccxv.  {Libro  Verde.. aV Asti,  11.  B.S.S.S.  xxvi.  p.  67).  See  below, 
p.  228. 


i6o      The  evidence  for  the  Ardoinid  possessions 

AstiS  at  a  time,  it  may  be,  when  Adelaide  was  not  greatly  in  his  good 
graces".  It  would  then  be  the  Countess'  object  to  regain  as  much 
as  she  could  of  her  lost  prerogatives,  under  the  name  of  the  curtis, 
as  a  fief  from  the  see^.  For  the  earlier  time,  the  evidence  is,  perhaps, 
best  met  by  considering  Bredolo  as  attached  to  Alba,  just  as  the 
Ardoinid  possessions  in  it  are  closely  connected  with  their  Alban  ones. 
As  a  district  it  had  doubtless  suffered  heavily  from  the  Saracens^,  which 
would  agree  with  its  subsequent  eclipse. 

When  we  cross  the  river  Tanaro  into  the  county  of  Alba  or  Diano 
(for  it  bore  both  names),  we  get  a  very  different  impression.  This 
district,  it  should  be  repeated,  stretched  from  the  Maritime  Alps  to  the 
Tanaro,  which  also  bounded  it  on  the  west ;  and  on  the  east  it  included 
Cortemiglia^.  The  Ardoinid  demesnes  in  it  fall  into  two  closely  con- 
nected groups*.  The  first  lies  along  the  upper  Tanaro,  and  is  really 
the  same  group  as  that  in  Bredolo.  It  includes  Farigliano^,  Lesegno* 
(if  not  in  Bredolo),  Ceva',  Priola^",  and  Garessio".  The  other  occupies 
the  valley  of  the  river  Belbo,  and  is  composed  of  S.  Stefano^^,  Castiglione 
Tinella^^,  Camo",   Cossano^^    Rocchetta   {})^\    Castino^',    Bosia   (P)^^ 

^  Libra  Verde... d^ Asti,  ii.  B.S.S.S.  xxvi.  p.  217,  "Omnia  ecciam  jura  Bredu- 
lensis  comitatus  et  publicas  functiones  cum  servis  et  ancillis  cum  plebe  corte  et  castro 
capellis  cum  omnibus  villis  et  castellis  terns  ecciam  cultis  et  incultis  que  dici  aut 
nominari  possunt  inter  Tanagrum  et  Sturiam."  This,  although  the  charter  is  else- 
where interpolated  (Gabotto,  Asti  e  la  poliiica  Sabauda,  B.S.S.S.  xvill.  pp.  6-7),  is 
confirmed  by  an  appointment  of  a  royal  missus  1041-6  at  the  request  of  Bishop 
Peter  II  of  Asti  [Piit  antiche  carte. ..d'' Asti,  B.S.S.S.  xxviii.  p.  330),  "quemdam 
suum  (Petri)  militem...eligimus... nostrum  missum  in  toto  episcopatu  Astensi  et  in 
comitatu  Bredolensi  inter  Tanarum  et  Sturam." 

^  See  below,  p.  221,  n.  3.  ^  See  below,  p.  228. 

"•  The  pass  over  Col  di  Tenda  led  straight  into  it.  About  906  the  relics  of  St  Dalma- 
tius  were  removed  by  the  Bishop  of  Asti  to  Quargnente  from  the  Abbey  of  S.  Dalmazzo 
di  Pedona.  See  CipoUa,  Di  Audace  Vescovo  d^ Asti,  Misc.  stor.  ital.  xxvii.  (2.  xii.), 
pp.  142-51.  Cf.  Patrucco,  I  Saraceni  7ielle  Alpi  occidentali,  B.S.S.S.  XXXII.  pp.  355 
and  405. 

*  See  Pere  Savio,  Gli  antichi  vescovi,  pp.  587-8,  for  the  limits  of  the  diocese  which 
would  not  much  dift'er  from  those  of  the  county. 

®  I  should  not  like  to  guarantee  all  the  identifications  in  the  following  lists.  Cf. 
Durandi,  Piemonte  Cispadano. 

''  Car.  Reg.  xxii.,  lxiv.  (see  p.  157,  n.  i). 

*  Car.  Reg.  Liv.  (Moriondi,  Momimenta  Aqueiisia,  I.  21). 
^  Car.  Reg.  CLXi.  (see  p.  158,  n.  i). 

"  Car.  Reg.  xciv.  (CipoUa,  Carte  di  S.  Giusto,  B.I.S.I.  18,  p.  76). 

"  Car.  Reg.  LXiv.  (see  p.  157,  n.  i),  Lxviii.  (p.  158,  n.  11). 

^2  Car.  Reg.  xxii.,  LXlv.  (see  p.  157,  n.  i). 

12  Car.  Reg.  xxii.  (see  p.  157,  n.  i). 

"  Car.  Reg.  xxii.  (see  p.  157,  n.  i).  1^  Car.  Reg.  xxii.,  lxiv.  (p.  157,  n.  i). 

i«  Car.  Reg.  LXiv.  (see  p.  157,  n.  i).  i''  Car.  Reg.  xxii.,  lxiv.  (p.  157,  n.   i). 

18  Car.  Reg.  xxii.,  LXIV.  (?)  (see  p.  157,  n.  i). 


The  evidence  for  the  Ardoinid  possessions      i6i 

Benevello\  Albaretto-,  Arguello^  Carretto^  Roddino',  Soniano**, 
Bossolasco^,  Lequi  Borria*  and  Favrega^.  It  is  evident  that  the 
Ardoinids  would  have  few  competitors  for  the  countship  of  Alba ;  but 
evidence  for  the  fact  is  almost  entirely  lacking.  However,  c.  1034 
Ulric-Manfred  seems  to  take  an  official  part  against  the  heretics  of 
Monforte  in  the  county".  Further,  after  the  war  of  succession  for  the 
mark  of  Turin  in  1092—5,  and  not  before,  the  Aleramid  Marquesses 
del  Vasto  appear  as  ruling  both  Alba  and  Bredolo".  And  till  better 
informed  we  may  assume  that  Ardoin  III  acquired  it'"^;  for,  as  will  be 
seen  from  the  references  in  the  notes,  the  two  groups  of  demesnes  were 
shared  by  the  two  branches  of  the  House ^'^  which  recognized  him  as 
their  common  ancestor. 

Less  doubt  in  a  way  attaches  to  the  Ardoin  possession  of  the 
Ligurian  county  of  Albenga,  reached  through  their  demesnes  on  the 
Tanaro,  which  occupied  the  strip  from  S.  Remo  to  Pietra  between 
the  two  counties  of  Savona  and  Ventimiglia.  We  find  demesnes  of  the 
House  at  Prairolo'^,  Porto  Maurizio^^  and  near  Pompeiana'*,  as  well  as 
an  extensive  right  of  pig-feeding  from  the  Alps  to  the  sea'",  but  the 
argument  for  their  countship  consists  in  the  facts  that  Countess  Adelaide, 
wife  of  Duke  Herman  of  Swabia,  about  1038  executes  a  deed  in  the 
"  curtis  regia  "  of  Albenga,  and  so  should  be  Countess,  representing  the 
publica  potestas'^^ ;  and  that  Albenga  was  later  (twelfth  century)  denomi- 
nated a  "  mark  "  which  presupposes  a  Marquess,  the  Ardoinids  being 
the  only  serious  candidates  for  the  dignity".     Here,  too,  after  the  war 

'  Car.  Reg.  LXiv.  (p.  157,  n.  i). 

-  Car.  Reg.  lxiv.  (p.  157,  n.  i). 

'  Car.  Reg.  LXiv.  (p.  157,  n.  i). 

■*  Car.  Reg.  xxii.  LXlv.  (p.  157,  n.  i). 

5  Car.  Reg.  CLXXXV.  (Cartario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  II.  p.  339). 

*  See  note  5.  ^  See  note  5. 

*  Car.  Reg.  xxii.  lxiv.  (p.  157,  n.  i). 

"  Car.  Reg.  xxil.  (Favregae),  LXiv.  (Fabricae)  (p.  157,  n.  i).  It  was  later  called 
Favere  (near  S.  Stefano),  and  destroyed  by  Asti.     See  Durandi,  op.  cit.  p.  228. 

'**  See  below,  pp.  185-7. 

'1  See  below,  p.  258. 

'-  Bresslau,  op.  cit.  Ii.  p.  370. 

'■*  i.e.  Ulric-Manfred  and  the  Marquesses  of  Romagnano.  See  above,  pp.  149 
and  1 5 1-3. 

"  Car.  Reg.  Lxviii.  (see  p.  158,  n.  11),  ci.xi.  (see  p.  158,  n.  1). 

**  Car.  Reg.  CLXI.  (see  p.  158,  n.  i). 

"  Car.  Reg.  cxvii.  {M.H.P.  Chart.  11.  145). 

1'  Car.  Reg.  xciv.  (see  p.  159,  n.  6). 

'^  Car.  Reg.  cxvii.  (see  n.  16).     See  Bresslau,  op.  cit.  11.  p.  369. 

"*  Bresslau,  op.  cit.  11.  p.  442.  Patrucco,  I  Saraceni  ecc,  B.S..S.S.  xxxii.  p.  426, 
n.  3  makes  Albenga  part  of  the  "  mark  of  Savona,"  but  he  does  not  give  the  grounds 
for  this  view. 

P.  O.  II 


1 62      The  evidence  for  the  Ardoinid  possessions 

for  the  Turinese  succession  at  the  close  of  the  eleventh  century  we  find 
the  Aleramid  Marquesses  of  Vasto  in  possession'.  In  the  county  of 
Savona  the  only  Ardoinid  possession  we  know  of  is  Codevilla^ 

Ventimiglia  presents  a  more  difficult  case.  Ulric-Manfred  had 
property  there  we  know^,  but  the  existence  of  other  rights  is  another 
matter.  Yet  we  have  a  piece  of  evidence,  which,  if  really  referring  to 
the  Ardoinids,  would  show  that  they  really  were  Counts  there  for  a  time. 
This  document^  is  a  Breve  of  privileges  and  customs  given  by  dominus 
Ardoinus  viarchiso  to  the  men  of  Tenda,  Briga  and  Saorge  "  de  rebus 
nostris  et  comitis  que  nos  tenemus,"  and  confirmed  by  Otto  and  Conrad, 
the  Counts.  Baron  Carutti  would  see  in  the  Counts'  subscriptions  a 
later  addition  made  when  two  Counts  of  those  names  came  into  posses- 
sion of  the  county  c  1038-41  \  Bresslau  considers  them,  one  uncle, 
one  father  of  the  pair  of  X041,  and  contemporary  with  the  charter,  which 
he  considers  to  belong  to  King  Ardoin  (of  Ivrea)  and  to  be  dated 
c.  Iooo^  Carutti  favours  Ardoin  Glabrio  for  the  original  grantor; 
others  are  in  favour  of  Glabrio's  grandson,  Ardoin  V  (c.  1000).  With 
regard  to  the  Ardoin  that  is  meant,  it  is  noticeable  that  he  is  called 
marchiso,  not  marchio.  Now  marchiso  is  not  a  form  one  would  expect 
till  c.  iioo^  So  perhaps  we  should  look  on  the  Breve  as  most  likely  a 
later  document  of  confirmation  transcribed  when  the  later  form  marchiso 
was  already  coming  into  use.  This,  too,  is  what  we  should  infer  from 
the  fact  that  the  Marquess  Ardoin  mentioned  is  clearly  the  Count  of 
Ventimiglia*,  and  the  two  subscribers,  Otto  and  Conrad,  must  be  of 
later  date,  being  probably  the  Counts  Otto  and  Conrad  who  appear 
in  1041®  and  perhaps  in  1063,  1064  and  1077^".     Since  the  granting 

^  See  below,  p.  258. 

-  Car.  Reg.  CLXi.  (see  p.  158,  n.  i)  and  Car.  Reg.  L.  (see  next  note). 

^  Car.  Reg.  L.  (Carte  del  Pinerolesc,  B.S.S.S.  ill.  2,  p.  172).  This  charter  gives 
a  list  of  the  counties  where  Ulric-Manfred  and  his  wife  Bertha  owned  property  in 
1 02 1.     See  below,  pp.   173-4. 

■•  M.H.P.  Script.  I.  308  (Car.  Reg.  cxviii.). 

5  Carutti,  Regesla,  pp.  365-7  (Misc.  stor.  ital.  xxill.  pp.  102,  104,  105,  108). 

^  Bresslau,  op.  cit.  11.  p.  369. 

''  e.g.  Car.  Reg.  ccxxxii.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  27)  "comes  atque  marchisus." 
Even  then  it  is  a  bad  unusual  form.     See  below,  p.  273,  n.  4. 

^  "  Et  de  nostro  manente  non  consenciamus  nulla  virtute  neque  potestate  facere 
servitio,  nisi  oste  publica,  sicut  supra  legitur  de  suprascriptis  proprietariis,  et  comitalis 
que  est  comitis  senioris  nostri,  tarn  infra  comitatu  quam  infra  marca,  in  adjutorio 
siamus  ad  tenendum."  There  is  no  reference  to  Otto  and  Conrad  in  the  body  of 
the  deed  at  all.    We  should  have  "  comitum  seniorum  nostrorum"  if  there  were. 

3  See  Carutti,  Regesla,  p.  366  {M.H.P.  Script,  i.  327;  Misc.  stor.  ital.  xxiii. 
p.    104). 

I*'  See  Carutti,  Regesta,  p.  366  {M.H.P.  Script.  I.  350;  Misc.  stor.  ital.  xxiii. 
pp.   104,  105,   108). 


The  evidence  for  the  Ardoinid  possessions      i6 


J 


of  liberties  to  three  small  townships  seems  to  belong  to  a  later  date 
than  Glabrio's  and  King  Ardoin's  ruin  in  1014  supplies  a  cause  for 
the  change  of  dynasty,  it  has  been  argued  that  the  Ardoin  concerned 
here  was  the  king.  Still,  considering  that  seemingly  immunities  such 
as  are  here  granted  could  be  conferred  by  a  Marquess ^  and  that 
Ardoinid  lands  are  proved  in  the  county  which  is  reached  from  the 
Ardoinid  counties  of  i\.urade  and  Bredolo,  and  that  Anscarid  lands  are 
not  to  be  found  there,  the  identity  of  Ardoin  Glabrio  with  the  "Marchiso" 
appears  to  be  the  more  probable  conclusion.  Ardoin  V  of  Turin,  who  was 
dead  by  1027,  leaves  no  room  for  the  Conrad  Count  of  Ventimiglia 
who  was  living  in  1038  and  dead  by  1041,  and  for  the  latter's  father, 
also  a  Count  Conrad,  as  well". 

Concerning  Asti,  the  county  which  bordered  Alba  on  the  north  and 
part  of  Turin  on  the  east,  there  is  not  much  to  say.  Ardoin  Glabrio 
held  land  there  c.  950  and  in  964-'.  An  Ardoin  (?  V)  also  held  land  in 
the  county  in  looi^  Glabrio's  grandson  Ulric-Manfred  possessed  the 
castle  of  Annone,  and  confirms  his  brother  Bishop  Alric's  foundation 
of  S.  Aniano^  Finally,  Ulric-Manfred's  daughter  Countess  Adelaide  in 
1090  was  Countess  of  Asti".  How  far  did  the  possession  of  the  county 
go  back?  Count  CipoUa^  and  Professor  Pivano**  think  that  after 
Count  Otbert,  who  was  living  in  940,  there  were  no  further  Counts,  owing 
to  the  decadence  of  the  comital  power,  and  the  acquisition  of  the  public 
functions  in  the  city  and  in  their  lands  by  the  Bishops.  Still  the  Bishops 
do  not  seem  to  obtain  the  districium  of  the  county  or  the  latter  itself  till 
c  1093".     So  though  the  ample  immunity  and  powers  of  the  Bishops 

^  See  Mayer,  Italiemsche  Verfassungsg.  II.  p.  307.  One  privilege  granted  to  Tenda 
is  :  "  Ita  tarn  homines  habitatores  de  istis  locis  placitum  non  custodiant,  nisi  placitum 
residente  semel  in  anno  per  tres  dies." 

-  SeeCarutti,  Regesta,^.  366  (M.H.P.  Lib.  Jtirium  Gen.  i.  9,  a.x\A  M.H.P.  Script. 
I.  327). 

•'  Gabotto,  Le pin  antiche  carte... d^ Asti,  B.S.S.S.  xxvili.  pp.  123  and  172. 

^  id.  p.  245. 

5  Car.  Reg.  L.  (Carte del Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  in.  1,  p.  172)  ;  Car.  Reg.  LVI.  (Antiche 
carte... d^ Asti,  B.S.S.S.  xxviii.  p.  304).   Annone  commanded  the  road  eastwards. 

*  Car.  Reg.  ccxxviii.  (Libra  Verde... d' Asti,  B.S.S.S.  xxvi.  11.  198). 

^  Cipolla,  Di  Brunengo  Vescovo  d^ Asti  (Misc.  stor.  ital.  xxviii.  (11.  xiii.))  and  Di 
Rozone  Vescovo  d' Asti  (Mem.  R.  Accademia  di  Torino,  11.  Ser.  xlii.  (1892)). 

"  Pivano,  Stato  e  Chiesa,  135-6. 

'  By  969  (Otto  I,  M.G.H.  Dipl.  i.  513)  the  Bishop  has  districturn  etc.  for  four 
miles  round  the  city,  and  complete  immunity  for  his  other  lands.  In  992  (Otto  III, 
M.G.H.  Dipl.  II.  509)  he  appears  to  obtain  this///^  something  less  than  the  districturn 
throughout  the  diocese:  "Verum  eciam  civitatem  et  castella  cum  omnibus  integrita- 
til)us  et  adjacentiis  suis,  cum  iv.  miliariis  in  circuitu,  cum  placitis  et  omnibus  publicis 
vectigalibus,  et  quicquid  terrarum  publice  rei  est  tarn  infra  civitatem  et  castella  quam 
extra,  infra  totum  episcopatum  aut  comitatum  Astensem."  The  last  clause  is  obviously 
limited  to    the    quicquid  terrarum,   mentioned  just  before.       In  any  case  in    104 1 


164      The  evidence  for  the  Ardoinid  possessions 

left  little  to  the  publica  potestas,  it  seems  best  to  conclude  that  the 
county,  such  as  it  was,  went  to  Ardoin  III.  As  we  shall  see,  his 
descendants  obtained  very  real  power  in  the  district. 

Eastward  of  Asti  in  the  midst  of  the  Lombard  plain  lay  the  counties 
of  Lomello  and  Pavia.  Here  not  only  do  we  find  a  Marquess  Ardoin 
and  his  son  Oddo  owning  the  curtis  of  Pavone  in  967',  976-  and  996'', 
but  in  966  and  976  there  comes  before  us  an  Ardoin  Count  of  Pavia, 
who  at  the  latter  date  is  also  Marquess  ^  There  seems  to  be  no  good 
reason  for  refusing  to  see  Glabrio  himself  here,  of  whom  we  have  certain 
evidence  that  he  was  still  living  in  972'.  The  whole  situation  fits  in 
with  his  seizure  of  Breme  abbey  near  by.  Signor  Baudi  di  Vesme 
considers  the  Count  of  Pavia  to  be  more  probably  Ardoin  IV,  son  of 
Ardoin  Glabrio''.  Ardoin  IV,  however,  is  a  very  shadowy  personage 
and  may  have  predeceased  his  father''.  To  all  appearance  Ardoin 
Glabrio  obtained  the  county  of  Pavia  on  the  deprivation  of  Count 
Bernard  by  Otto  the  Great.  Then  Bernard  was  restored  after  Ardoin 
Glabrio's  death.  Ulric-Manfred  had  possessions  in  the  county  in  102 1*; 
but  there  is  no  trace  of  his  being  Count  if  we  deduct  one  doubtful 
statement". 

The  same  Ulric-Manfred  and  his  wife  Bertha  in  102 1  owned  proper- 
ties in  the  counties  of  Tortona,  Parma  and  Piacenza^".  Some  of  these 
might  come  in  dower  with  Bertha,  but  perhaps  Caverzago  in  the 
Piacentino"  is  one  which  was  inherited. 

Henry  III  extended  the  districtum  to  seven  miles  outside  the  city,  which  would  not 
have  been  necessary,  had  the  Bishop  exercised  the  full  authority  of  Count  already, 
c.  1093  Henry  IV  granted  the  county  to  the  Bishop  as  Adelaide  had  held  it. 

1  M.H.P.  Cod.  Dipl.  Langob.  1223. 

-  M.H.P.  Cod.  Dipl.  Langob.  1357. 

3  Car.  Reg.  XIX.  {M.H.P.  Cod.  Dipl.  Langob.  1595). 

*  966,  Robolini,  Mem.  Pav.  a.  144,  for  976  M.H.P.  Cod.  Dipl.  Langob.  1342 
(wrongly  dated  975). 

^  See  above,  pp.  146-7.     Cf.  for  the  vicissitudes  of  Pavia,  above,  p.  151,  n.  1. 

*  /  conti  di  Verona  (Nuovo  Arch.  Veneto,  Anno  vi.  Tomo  xi.),  pp.  281-4  ;  and 
Le  origini  della  fetidalita  nel  Pinerolese  {B.S.S.S.  i.),  p.  4,  n.  2. 

^  See  above,  pp.  148-9.  We  have  only  one  certain  mention  of  him  of  the  date  of 
1029  (Car.  Peg.  Lxxvi.  Cipolla,  Le  piii  anticke  carte  di  S.  Giicsto,  Bull.  Istit.  ital.  18, 
p.  61). 

*  Car.  Peg.  L.  (Carte  del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  in.  2,  p.  172). 

^  Car.  Reg.  Lxxxviii.  (Cartario  di  S.  Soluiore,  B.S.S.S.  XLiv.  pp.  10-13).  See 
above,  p.  140,  n.  i. 

^^  Car.  Reg.  L.  (see  n.  8) ;  for  the  explanation  of  Car.  Reg.  i.xxxviii.  see  above, 
p.  140,  n.  I.  In  1021  Bernard  was  Count  of  Parma  (see  Pivano,  Stato  e  Chiesa, 
p.  146,  n.  2,  p.  287,  n.  i).  Lanfranc  Count  of  Piacenza  {op.  cit.  p.  287,  n.  4). 
Tortona  was  under  the  Otbertines  (see  Bresslau,  op.  cit.  11.  p.  426). 

"  If  this  is  the  right  identification  for  Caverzadiga  (Car.  Reg.  xxii.,  M.G.H. 
Dipl.   II.  841). 


Ulric-Manfred  and  his  brothers  165 

Similar  traces  of  possessions  are  to  be  found  in  the  counties  of 
Vercelli\  Pombia'  and  Ivrea^,  without  any  record  of  official  authority- 
exercised  by  the  Ardoinids  there''.  In  fact  at  the  time  we  find  these 
traces  we  know  the  countships  were  possessed  by  other  persons  ^ 


Section  III.    The  later  Ardoinids. 

So  far  the  rise  of  the  Ardoinids  has  been  traced.  We  have  now  to 
follow  the  fortunes  of  the  Marquess  of  Turin  at  the  height  of  his  power, 
when  he  is  only  second  to  the  Canossan  Marquess  among  the  Italian 
magnates.  While  Ardoin  Glabrio  is  almost  a  legendary  figure,  and 
Manfred  I  is  only  known  to  exist  in  prosperous  obscurity,  the  next 
head  of  the  House  plays  an  important  part  in  Italian  politics  and  allows 
us  to  make  some  reasonable  inferences  as  to  his  youthful  ambitions  and 
the  prudent  attitude  he  adopted  at  the  last,  and  finally  as  to  his  govern- 
ment of  his  mark  and  his  share  in  its  later  prosperity. 

A  new  generation  of  the  Ardoinids  comes  to  the  fore  about  a.d.  iooo. 
Ardoin  V  must  have  succeeded  his  father  Oddo  I  about  998**.  But  the 
sons  of  Manfred  I  have  greater  importance  for  us ;  so  it  is  best  to  take 
them  first,  although  the  foundation  of  S.  Michele  della  Chiusa  in  which 
Ardoin  V  took  part  occurred  c.  1000  earlier  than  any  record  of  theirs.  In 
fact  the  diploma  of  Emperor  Otto  III  which  shows  us  Manfred  I  dead 
is  only  dated  31  July  looi.  The  latter's  sons  were  five  in  number.  The 
eldest  was  Ulric-Manfred'',  head  of  the  House  and  the  real  Marquess  of 

'  Car.  Reg,  l.  {Carte  del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  iii.  2,  p.  172) ;  and  for  Occimiano, 
Car.  Reg.  cxxi.  (Carte  del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  III.  2,  p.  181).  But  Occimiano  seems 
to  be  in  the  county  of  Montferrat  by  1040.     See  charter  cited. 

-  Mosezzo,  etc.  (Car.  Reg.  CLViii.  M.H.P.  Chart.  I.  599).  Signor  Baudi  di  Vesme 
thinks  this  possession  is  evidence  for  a  marriage  of  Ardoin  Glabrio ;  see  above, 
p.   148,  n.  2. 

*  Car.  Reg.  L.  (see  n.  i). 

^  The  only  evidence  of  such  with  regard  to  Vercelli  hes  in  Car.  Reg.  Lxxxvili., 
concerning  which  see  above,  p.  140,  n.  j.  In  the  same  document  Ivrea  appears  in 
the  same  way,  and  there  is  also  the  connection  of  Ulric-Manfred  with  the  city,  for 
which  see  below,  pp.  170-1. 

'  Vercelli  in  999  was  part  of  the  mark  of  Ivrea,  and  was  granted  to  the  Bishop  by 
Otto  III  (I'ivano,  op.  tit.  p.  232).  Pombia  was  under  separate  Counts,  962  Adalbert, 
973  Dado,  looi  Wibert  (Dado's  son),  1030  Ubert  (?=Wibert),  1034  Adalbert  and  Guy 
(sons  of  Ubert).  In  1028  Emperor  Conrad  II  granted  it  to  the  see  of  Novara,  it 
.seems  with  not  much  effect  (Carutti,  Uiiiberto  I  e  Re  Ardoiiio,  Pt  11.  Cap.  vi.).  For 
Ivrea,  see  below,  pp.  170-1. 

*  See  above,  p.  1 49,  and  below,  pp.   [  78-80. 

^  The  doulile  name  is  an  interesting  peculiarity  of  Burgundian  and  Lombard 
nomenclature  at  this  time.  Sometimes  it  is  due  to  a  man  being  known  both  by  his 
formal  name  and  its  familiar  diminutive,  e.g.  Adalbert- Atto  (Azzo)  (cf.  above,  p.  141) 


1 66  The  later  Ardoinids 

Turin.  Before  1014  he  had  married  Bertha,  daughter  of  the  Otbertine 
Marquess  Otbert  IP.  Next  came  the  cleric  Alric  who  later  became 
Bishop  of  Asti.  Then  Oddo  II,  joint-Count  of  Turin^.  Then  Atto, 
of  whom  nothing  else  seems  known ^,  and  Hugh,  who  seems  to  have 
granted  Chivasso  to  the  new  Abbey  of  Chiusa^  Lastly  comes  Guido, 
of  whom  we  only  know  a  legend  in  the  Chronicle  of  Novalesa'^.  It 
seems  that  the  choleric  Marquess  turned  Abbot  Gezo  by  force  out  of 
the  house  where  he  was  staying  in  the  Abbey's  curtis  of  Supponito.  A 
vigorous  bout  of  prayer  on  the  part  of  the  holy  Abbot,  however,  secured 
revenge.  St  Peter  and  St  Paul  despatched  two  demons  who  struck 
Marquess  Guido  with  apoplexy  or  paralysis  while  at  a  feast,  and  he  died 
without  the  Sacrament.  This  must  have  happened  certainly  before 
1027-9  when  we  hear  of  his  daughter  Prangarda,  then  already  widow 
of  Opizzo  of  Biandrate*. 

Marquess  Ulric-Manfred  and  his  House  had  to  face  difficult  times. 
A  double  revolution  was  proceeding  in  North  Italy.     On  the  one  hand, 

and  "Adam  qui  et  Amizo  "  (see  above,  p.  148,  n.  3).  At  other  times  the  second 
name  seems  adopted  as  an  official  name  in  token  of  heirship  to  some  dignity.  This 
was  the  case  with  Otto-William  of  "  Franche  Comte  "  (see  above,  p.  11).  Ulric- 
Manfred 's  appellation  must  belong  to  the  latter  class.  His  father's  name  was  Manfred 
and  contemporar).'  chroniclers  always  call  him  so,  but  in  his  documents  he  styles  him- 
self "  Odelricus  qui  et  Maginfredus  "  (there  are  variant  spellings),  and  Otto  III  calls 
him  "Odelricus  qui  Mainfredus  nominatur"  {M.G.H.  Dipl.  11.  841).  Presumably 
his  original  name  was  the  undistinguished  Ulric,  and  he  assumed  that  of  Manfred  as 
heir  to,  or  ruler  of,  the  mark. 

^  Car.  Keg.  xxxviii.  {M.G.H.  Dipl.  in.  379):  for  her  filiation  see  e.g.  Car.  Keg. 
Lxxvi.  (see  p.  154,  n.  3). 

^  Car.  Keg.  lxxvi.  (see  p.  154,  n.  3).  Signor  di  Vesme  {Le  origini  della  feudalita. 
nel  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  i.p.  15,  n.  1)  gives  Oddo  II  a  son  Manfred  on  the  strength  of 
a  charter  of  1037  (Car.  Stip.  VIII.  Carte  Staffarda,  II.  B.S.S.S.  xii.  237),  but  one  would 
prefer  an  actual  blood-relation  of  Bertha  (see  below,  p.  192,  n.  3). 

^  Car.  Keg.  Lxxvi.  (see  p.  i54,n.  3).  Signor  di  Vesme,  loc.  cit.,  gives  Atto  a  wife 
Gualdrada  and  a  daughter  Adelaide  on  the  strength  of  the  Obituary  of  Vangadizza. 
But  these  persons  seem  from  their  surroundings  to  be  Otbertines.  See  Carteggio  tra 
...Muratori  e  Leibniz,  Atti  e  Mem.  Dep.  stor.  Pat.  Moden.  Ser.  iv.  Vol.  in.  pp.  151, 
215,  218-9,  224,  229,  235-6. 

*  Car.  Keg.  cxxvi.  and  see  below,  p.  180.  Count  di  Vesme  {Origini  della 
feudalita  ecc,  B.S.S.S.  i.  p.  15,  n.  4)  would  have  Hugh  slain  at  the  siege  of  Milan 

1037  (Landulf.  //ist.  Medial.  11.  25  [M.G.H.  Script,  viii.)),  but  Landulfs  Hugh 
seems  to  replace  the  Guido  of  Arnulf.  Mediol.  11.  13  (M.G.H.  Script,  viii.),  who 
was  probably  an  Aleramid  (see  Bresslau,  op.  cit.  i.  394),  though  there  is  nothing 
to  prevent  his  being  Guido  of  Romagnano,  son  of  Ardoin  V,  who  was  dead  by 
1040  (see  above,  p.  153). 

*  Chron.  Noval.  v.  32  (Cipolla,  Mon.  Naval.  II.  271-2);  also  Car.  Keg.  Lxxvi. 
(see  p.  154,  n.  3). 

®  See  Count  di  Vesme,  Le  origini  della  feudalita  ecc,  B.S.S.S,  i.  p.  8.  Guido's 
death  happened  probably  before  1014,  as  by  that  date  Gezo  was  dead,  and  Guido's 
death  seems  to  have  soon  followed  the  outrage  at  Supponito. 


The  revolt  of  Ardoin  of  Ivrea  167 

in  view  of  the  inefficiency  of  those  countships  which  were  decayed  and 
of  the  ever  greater  importance  of  the  cities,  and  of  the  dangerousness  of 
the  too  great  power  of  the  marchional  families,  and  of  the  advantage  of 
being  able  to  nominate  the  local  rulers,  the  Saxon  Emperors  were  en- 
gaged in  building  up  a  system  of  episcopal  government.  This  alliance 
with  the  Church  would  help  to  restore  the  public  authority  where  it  was 
decayed,  would  ally  it  with  the  citizen-class,  with  whom  the  Bishops 
were  then  for  the  most  part  in  close  touch,  and  would  break  up  the 
power  of  the  Marquesses  where  it  was  necessary.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  comparative  peace  of  the  countryside,  freed  from  devastation,  had 
resulted  in  the  growth  in  numbers  and  wealth  of  the  lesser  nobles 
{secundt  miittes),  who  were  mainly  the  after-vassals  and  vassals  of  the 
Counts  and  Bishops.  Now  in  1000  these  feudatories  were  not  very 
friendly  to  the  Emperors,  for  they  wished  for  freedom  from  the  public 
power,  in  which  they  did  not  greatly  share,  nor  could  they  love  their 
immediate  suzerains  who,  whether  Counts  or  Bishops  or  their  greater 
vassals,  could  damage  their  material  interests.  But  they  formed  the  nerve 
of  the  fighting  force  of  North  Italy,  and  it  was  important  to  capture 
their  support. 

The  opposing  forces  were  brought  into  conflict  by  the  revolt  of 
Ardoin,  Marquess  of  Ivrea.  The  powers  granted  to  the  Bishop  of 
VerceUi  seem  to  have  been  the  main  cause  of  his  discontent.  He  had 
no  legal  redress,  for  the  Emperors  in  these  grants  of  jurisdiction  and 
immunity  theoretically  gave  away  fractions  of  their  own  powers,  not  of 
the  Counts'  inheritance.  The  latter  were  still  officials  in  law.  Ardoin 
was  not  an  able  man,  but  he  had  the  sympathies  of  the  secundi  milites, 
to  which  class,  though  probably  of  Anscarid  origin,  he  was  nearly  allied. 
They  rallied  to  his  standard ;  and  his  subsequent  revolt  has  a  certain 
anarchic  character  in  it.  The  death  of  a  Bishop  of  Vercelli  in  faction- 
fighting  and  quarrels  with  the  Bishop  of  Ivrea  formed  the  prelude.  In 
998  Otto  III  appointed  a  German,  Leo,  Bishop  of  Vercelli,  who  was  to 
be  for  twenty  years  the  leader  of  the  imperial-ecclesiastical  party  in 
North- West  Italy.  Next  year  Ardoin  was  deprived  and  sentenced  to  a 
sort  of  outlawed  life  of  pilgrimage,  while  his  counties  of  Vercelli  and 
Santhia  were  given  to  the  Bishopric  of  Vercelli.  But  the  Marquess  did 
not  submit,  and  during  Otto  Ill's  absence  in  the  spring  of  1000,  he 
even  seems  to  have  taken  the  title  of  King  of  Italy.  Otto  III  would 
appear  at  least  to  have  driven  him  back  to  his  mark  in  the  summer ; 
only  to  die  himself  in  January  1002'. 

Ulric-Manfred's   share   in   these  events  was  clearly  some  kind  of 
.support  of  the  Emperor.     The  diploma  of  the  31st  July  looi  specially 

*  See  Pivano,  Stato  e  Ckiesa,  222-48,  and  Baudi  di  Vesme,  //  re  Ardoino  e  la 
riscossa  italica  contro  Ottone  III  e  Arrigo  /,  B.S.S.S.  vii.  pp.  i-ii. 


i68  The  later  Ardoinids 

mentions  his  fidelity^  and  we  can  easily  see  why  he  should  be  loyal. 
Ardoin  was  a  rival ;  the  secundi  milites  were  his  own  occult  foes,  for  he 
was  the  "public  power"  and  the  chief  feudal  suzerain  in  his  mark. 
Even  the  immunity  of  the  Bishop  of  Turin,  which  after  all  did  not 
include  Turin  itself,  did  not  greatly  reduce  his  mark,  and  that  of  out- 
lying Asti  was  ancient  history.  Besides  we  may  credit  the  Ardoinids 
with  the  policy  of  keeping  up  a  close  alliance  with  their  Bishops,  who 
had  not  perhaps  the  support  of  a  strong  citizen-class,  such  as  prelates 
often  had  elsewhere'^. 

But  Otto's  death  produced  a  rapid  change.  On  the  15th  February 
1002  Ardoin  was  regularly  elected  and  crowned  king  at  Pavia  by  the 
assembled  magnates.  Only  the  Canossan  Marquess  Tedald,  with  Leo 
of  Vercelli  and  one  or  two  other  Bishops,  held  aloof  altogether.  Arch- 
bishop Arnulf  of  Milan  and  others  seem  to  have  grudgingly  recognized 
the  new  king,  while  joining  with  the  open  Germanophiles  in  private 
messages  begging  the  new  German  ruler  Henry  II  to  intervene.  We 
may  suppose,  but  it  is  only  a  supposition,  that  Ulric-Manfred's  attitude 
was  similar.  The  fact  was  that  Ardoin,  supported  by  the  secundi  milites, 
was  for  the  moment  irresistible;  even  if  his  violence  and  unwisdom  were 
soon  to  show  he  did  not  know  how  to  rule". 

However,  his  military  ability  was  unquestioned  ;  and  was  soon  put  to 
the  proof.  Henry  II  was  by  no  means  inclined  to  give  up  the  union  of 
the  German  kingdom  with  the  revived  Empire  of  the  West,  which  had 
been  established  under  the  Ottos.  The  title,  which  he  assumed  now 
and  again,  of  "  Romanorum  rex "  stated,  it  may  be,  the  doctrine  that 
the  King  of  Germany  was  de  jure  lord  of  the  Western  Empire  and  of 
Italy ^  Late  in  the  year  1002  the  Duke  of  Carinthia  was  dispatched 
against  the  Lombards,  only  to  be  defeated  by  Ardoin  at  Fabrica'.    The 


1  Car.  Reg.  xxil.  {M.G.H.  Dipl.  11.  841),  "quia  fideliter  nobis  desen'ivit." 

-  See  Pivano,  Stato  e  Chiesa,  pp.  230,  289,  Diplomas  for  Bishop  of  Turin,  M.G.H. 
Dipl.  II.  pp.  283  and  727.     For  the  Bishop  of  Asti,  see  above,  p.  163,  n.  9. 

^  See  Pivano,  Stato  e  Chiesa,  pp.  248-51,  Hirsch,  Heinrich  II,  i.  235-40.  I  can- 
not find  evidence  in  favour  of  the  view  of  Count  di  Vesme  and  Professor  Gabotto  (di 
Vesme,  //  re  Ardoiiio,  B.S.S.S.  Vii.  p.  8,  Origuii  delta  feudalita  net  Piiterolese, 
B.S.S.S.  I.  p.  2,  n.,  and  Gabotto,  Un  inillennio  di  storia  eporediese,  B.S.S.S.  iv.  p.  25) 
that  Ulric-Manfred  was  given  the  mark  of  Ivrea  on  Ardoin's  and  his  son's  deprivation. 
True,  we  should  expect  that  a  new  Count  of  Ivrea  at  least  should  be  appointed,  but 
there  would  be  no  hurry  to  do  so,  since  Ardoin  remained  in  possession. 

^  Bryce,  Holy  Roman  Empire,  1904,  p.  531.  The  instance  dates  from  1007 
{M.G.H.  Dipl.  III.  201).  Ficker  [Mitth.  Inst./,  ostei-r.  Geschichtsf.  vi.  225  ff.),  how- 
ever, thinks  the  occurrence  of  the  title  at  this  date  merely  a  piece  of  carelessness. 
Yet  the  possibility  of  Henry's  claiming  it  is  not  quite  negatived  by  the  fact  that  his 
claim  was  not  generally  recognized. 

^  Pivano,  op.  cit.  p.  251,  Hirsch,  op.  cit.  pp.  240-2. 


Alric  becomes   Bishop  of  Asti  169 

Ivrean  could  occupy  a  year  or  so  in  the  works  of  peace,  and  precisely 
in  this  interval  the  foundation  of  the  great  abbey  of  S.  Benigno  di 
Fruttuaria  in  his  own  mark  of  Ivrea  on  the  high-road  between  Turin 
and  the  Great  St  Bernard,  was  taking  placed 

Ardoin's  prosperity  did  not  last  long.  In  April  1004  Henry  II 
invaded  Italy  in  person.  Bishops,  grandees  and  cities  alike  deserted 
his  rival ;  and  the  conqueror  was  crowned  at  Pavia  on  the  15th  of  May. 
Soon  Ardoin  was  besieged  in  his  mountain  castle  of  Sparone  in  the  Val 
di  Locana  on  the  spurs  of  the  Gran  Paradiso  massif.  The  pious 
Henry  II  was  pleased  to  sanction  the  Anscarid  foundation  of  Fruttuaria 
and  had  its  first  Abbot  consecrated  in  his  presence"-.  His  party  seemed 
secure,  but  in  June  he  was  called  back  to  Germany,  not  to  return  for 
nine  years.  The  secundi  milites  again  began  to  rally  to  King  Ardoin. 
After  a  year  the  siege  of  Sparone  was  given  up,  and  a  long,  undecided 
war  began  between  the  Ivrean  and  German  partizans''. 

That  Ulric-Manfred  was  at  this  time  a  pro-Henrician  we  may  gather 
from  a  portion  of  his  history  which  has  come  down  to  us.  Peter, 
Bishop  of  Asti,  had  been  a  partizan  of  Ardoin,  and  for  his  crime  had 
gone  into  hiding.  Now  Henry  II  towards  1008^  gave  the  bishopric 
to  Ulric-Manfred's  brother  Alric.  This  was  of  course  the  Marquess' 
doing,  for  Henry  was  too  far  off  to  do  much.  In  any  case  Archbishop 
Arnulf  of  Milan  took  offence  and  refused  consecration  to  the  intruded 
Bishop.  Thereupon  Alric  went  to  Rome,  and,  what  with  his  brother's 
influence  and  his  own,  obtained  consecration  at  the  Pope's  hand,  adopt- 
ing, what  was  then  a  rare  thing,  Roman  law  in  honour  of  his  priestly 
character^  But  the  successor  of  St  Ambrose  was  not  yet  an  obedient 
servant  of  the  successor  of  St  Peter,  nor  was  Ulric-Manfred,  in  spite  of 
his  high  rank  and  power,  able  to  meet  the  ecclesiastical  chief  of  Lom- 
bardy  on  equal  terms. 

Arnulf  in  high  wrath  collected  an  army,  and  with  his  suffragans, 
besieged  both  Alric  and  Ulric-Manfred  in  the  city  of  Asti.  The  two 
culprits  were  obliged  to  submit  to  a  humiliating  peace.  Not  to  mention 
a  heavy  fine  paid  by  the  Marquess,  they  were  forced  to  do  penance. 
The  Bishop  carrying  a  Bible,  the  Marquess  carrying  a  dog  went  barefoot 
from  three  miles  outside  Milan  to  the  cathedral,  and  publicly  confessed 


'  See  Gabotto,  Un  milieu uio  di  storia  eporediese,  B.S.S.S.  iv.  pp.  28-9. 

-  Gabotto,  loc.  cit. 

'■'■  Pivano,  op.  cit.  ^si-^,  Hiisch,  op.  cit.  302-13. 

^  Alric's  episcopate  was  dated  from  4  May  1008.  Was  this  the  date  of  his  election 
by  the  chapter,  or  consecration  by  the  Pope?  Savio,  Gli  auticki  vescovi,  p.  134. 

'•>  See  e.g.  Car.  Reg.  lxxvi.  (Cipolla,  Carte  di  S.  Giusto  di  Susa,  Bull.  Istit.  stor. 
ital.  18,  p.  61),  "ego...Alrico  episcopo  («V),  honore  sacerdocii,  habeo  et  legem  Roma- 
nam  nunc  vivere  videor,  quamvis  ex  natione...SaIichus  sum." 


170  The  later  Ardoinids 

their  fault.  Then  Arnulf  graciously  restored  the  bishopric  to  Alric^  It 
must  have  been  grievous  to  Ulric-Manfred's  pride,  but  he  retained  his 
acquisition.  For  the  next  eighty  years  the  Ardoinids  kept  a  firm  hold  on 
the  greatest  north-west  Lombard  see,  and  the  almost  comital  position 
of  the  Bishop  only  went  to  swell  the  power  of  the  Mark  of  Turin. 

It  was  not  till  Christmas  1013  that  Henry  II  was  again  at  Pavia,  on 
his  way  to  decide  on  the  claims  of  rival  Popes  and  to  receive  the 
imperial  crown.  He  found  general  submission  ;  Ardoin  himself  offered 
vainly  to  resign  his  claims,  if  only  he  was  secured  one  county.  But  a 
rapid  change  of  attitude  followed  the  coronation  at  Rome.  Henry 
offended  the  great  marchional  House  of  the  Otbertines  as  well  as  other 
nobles,  and  Ardoin  was  regaining  ground  when  the  Emperor  left  Italy  at 
the  end  of  May  10 14.  Leo  was  soon  driven  from  Vercelli;  the  Bishops 
of  Novara  and  Come  also  suffered,  while  Milan  and  Piacenza  stood 
neutral.  But  it  was  only  for  a  moment.  Marquess  Boniface  of  Canossa 
and  Archbishop  Arnulf  gathered  their  forces  ;  the  Otbertine  Marquesses 
were  captured  and  Leo  was  restored  to  Vercelli.  Ardoin  himself  again 
withdrew  to  his  county  of  Ivrea.  He  was  in  despair  and  ill.  In 
September  10 14  he  became  a  monk  at  Fruttuaria,  and  died  there  on 
the  14th  December  of  the  following  year^ 

Probably  we  should  explain  these  bewildering  vicissitudes  by  the 
fact  that  Henry  II  by  impolitic  measures  had  brought  about  a  union 
of  some  of  the  greater  nobles,  invested  with  the  publica  potestas,  and 
the  secundi  miliies,  who  in  general  were  for  Ardoin.  It  therefore  be- 
comes of  interest  to  know  if  Ulric-Manfred  was  a  malcontent  or  not. 
Against  the  view  that  he  was  one,  we  may  set  the  difficulty  of  finding  a 
grievance  which  should  make  him  choose  Ardoin  rather  than  Henry  II. 
In  fact  it  has  been  upheld'*  that  he  had  even  received  the  mark  of  Ivrea 
from  the  Emperor,  if  not  in  1000  or  1004,  at  least  in  10 13.  But  the 
evidence  for  this  is  very  slight.  It  consists  (i)  in  the  doubtful  wording 
of  Car.  Reg.  lxxxviii.;  (ii)  in  an  expression  used  by  Leo  of  Vercelli 

^  Arnulf.  Mediol.  I.  18,  19  {M.G.H.  Script,  viii.  11),  "  Dederat  enim  imperator, 
vivente  ipso  (episcopo  Astense)  et  abjecto,  episcopatum  cuidam  Olderico  fratri  Main- 
fredi  marchionis  eximii. ...Oldericus  (error  for  Adalricus)  autem  ille  sua  fretus  ac 
fratris  potentia,  Romam  proficiscens,  subreptione  quadam  consecrari  se  fecit  a  Romano 
pontifice...(Arnulfus)  civitatem  aggressus  Astensem,  clausis  in  urbe  marchione  cum  epis- 
copo, densissima  obsidione  valavit.  Nee  a  populatione  belloque  destitit,  donee  pace 
composita  illius  satisfactum  est  voluntati."  The  war  would  fall  very  well  in  1009.  There 
are  no  charters  of  bishop  or  chapter  between  24  November  1008  and  25  February 
loio.  See  Gabotto,  Le piic  antiche  carte...d'Asti,  B.S.S.S.  xxvni.  Cf.  Pivano,  op. 
cit.  pp.  256-7,  Hirsch,  Heinrich  II,  11.  pp.  370-1.  Astigian  capitular  charters  are 
dated  all  along  from  Alric's  succession  by  Henry's  regnal  years. 

^  Pivano,  op.  cit.  pp.  267-73,  Hirsch,  op. cit.  pp.  4 14-40,  di  Vesme,  op.  cit.  pp.  1 5-17. 

^  Carutti,  Umberto  I  e  il  re  Ardoino,  p.  230.  I  have  put  together  all  the  arguments 
for  this  view  that  I  can  find.     Cf.  p.  168,  n.  3  above. 


Did   Ulric-Manfred  become   Marquess  of  Ivrea  ?    171 

c.  1016^;  (iii)  in  the  fact  that  Ulric-Manfred's  widow  Bertha  seems  to 
control  c.  1037  the  roads  leading  across  the  Alps  to  Champagne  (and 
thus  the  chief  one,  the  Great  St  Bernard)"^ ;  (iv)  in  the  protection  given 
by  Countess  Adelaide  to  the  Abbey  of  Fruttuaria^;  (v)  in  a  supposed 
charter  of  Count  Humbert  II  of  Savoy  in  1094  to  Sta  Maria  of  Ivrea 
and  S.  Salvatore  of  Turin  ^;  (vi)  and  in  the  homage  from  the  Counts  of 
the  Canavese  possessed  by  Savoy  in  the  twelfth  century  ^ 

Of  these  arguments,  the  first  as  shown  above  is  not  to  be  depended 
on".  The  third  count,  Bertha's  intervention,  need  not  mean  much, 
and  besides  comes  after  the  capture  of  Ivrea  in  1026  by  Conrad  II, 
which  may  have  altered  the  status  of  that  part  of  the  country  for  the 
time''.  Indeed,  if  the  county  of  Ivrea  was  conferred  on  Ulric-Manfred 
shortly  after  December  1026,  we  have  an  easy  explanation  of  the  fourth, 
fifth  and  sixth  counts.  But  in  any  case  they  carry  little  weight. 
Adelaide  was  under  any  hypothesis  the  chief  secular  power  near 
Fruttuaria  c.  1070.  The  charter  of  1094  as  likely  as  not  belongs  to  a 
Hubert  of  Castellamonte^  The  homage  due  to  the  Counts  of  Savoy  in 
the  Canavese  is  more  probably  due  to  the  wars  of  Amadeus  IIP.  As 
for  the  second,  Leo  appears  to  refer  more  to  usurpation  on  Ulric- 
Manfred's  part  than  to  an  imperial  grant ^•'.  The  capture  of  Ivrea  by 
Conrad  in  1026  seems  decisive  against  Ulric-Manfred,  then  in  favour 
and  receiving  a  diploma  (see  below,  pp.  176-7),  being  lord  of  the 
district.  In  fact  the  evidence  for  the  years  1015-25  goes  to  show  that 
the  Marquess  was  then  leading  the  anti-German  and  anti-episcopal 
party. 

Thus  the  general  impression  we  get  is  that  Ulric-Manfred  after 
Ardoin's  death  turned  against  his  former  friends.  His  wife  was  an 
Otbertine ;  he  may  have  been  personally  aggrieved  by  Henry  II.  Still 
more,  his  pro-German  attitude  had  been  probably  due  to  jealousy  of 
King  Ardoin  and  dislike  of  the  seaindi  milites.    Now  episcopal  aggression 

'  .See  below,  p.  172,  esp.  n.  2. 

-  Car.  Keg.  CXII.  (Ann.  Saxo,  1037,  M.G.H.  Script,  vi.  680-1). 

■'  Car.  A'eg.  ci.xxxi.  CCIII. 

^  Car.  7\eg.  ccxxvii.  {Carte  vescovili  d'' Ivrea,  B.S.S.S.  v.  p.  13). 

5  Car.  Keg.  cci.xviii.  (Cartariodi  S.  Solutore,  B.S.S.S.  xi.iv.  p.  50)  and  CCCXLVI. 
{Gesia  Kegis  Henrici  Secttndi,  Rolls  Series,  i.  p.  37). 

^  See  above,  p.  140,  n.  i. 

'  In  1029  two  Anscarids,  perhaps  King  Ardoin's  sons,  appear  as  Counts  of  Ivrea 
(see  Carutti,  op.  cit.  p.  231).  I  imagine  it  was  quite  possible  for  them  to  be  in  relations 
of  personal  dependence  (not  official  with  regard  to  public  powers)  to  their  great 
neighbour,  by  commendation  in  short,  which  later  might  ripen  into  complete  feudal 
dependence. 

8  So  Count  di  Vesme  and  Prof  Gabotto,  Un  millennio  di  sioria  eporediese,  B.S.S.S. 
IV.  pp.  42-3.     But  see  above,  p.  1 1 1,  n.  5. 

»  See  below,  pp.  273-4  and  ^86.  "  See  below,  p.  172,  n.  3. 


172  The  later  Ardoinids 

was  the  enemy,  and  for  a  time,  as  we  have  seen,  it  is  likely  that  the 
seaindi  milites  were  in  accord  with  the  great  nobles. 

Accordingly  we  hear  from  Leo  of  Vercelli  c.  1015^  that  Ulric-Man- 
fred  was  in  alliance  with  Ardoin's  old  supporters,  the  late  King's  sons, 
his  brother  Count  VVibert  of  Pombia,  Count  Hubert  the  Red  of  Vercelli, 
and  a  host  of  other  disinherited  knights.  Their  main  object  was  to 
prevent  the  Bishops,  especially  the  German  Leo  of  Vercelli,  taking 
possession  of  the  imperial  grants  of  public  powers  and  confiscated 
property.  With  two  of  Henry's  councillors,  the  Archbishop  of  Cologne 
and  the  Bishop  of  Wurzburg,  they  maintained  friendly  relations.  None 
the  less  they  were  prepared  to  shake  off  the  Emperor's  rule  altogether. 
Leo  even  says  they  were  offering  King  Rudolf  HI  of  Burgundy  the 
mark  of  Ivrea  as  a  bribe  for  intervention,  and  one  wonders  of  whom 
they  were  thinking  as  a  real  ally  under  the  name  of  the  feeble  Rudolf. 
Was  it  the  Anscarid  Otto-William  of  Burgundy*?  Meantime  they 
pressed  Leo  hard.  Most  of  his  castles  were  in  their  hands.  Ulric- 
Manfred  and  the  sons  of  King  Ardoin  seized  on  Ivrea,  and  the  Mar- 
quess even  made  the  citizens  swear  obedience  to  himself.  Evidently  he 
was  trying  to  extend  his  Mark'*. 

Henry  W  at  first  was  none  too  anxious  to  take  a  definite  side.  He 
proposed  a  Diet  at  Roncaglia  which  fell  through,  while  partizan  warfare 
went  on  vigorously  round  Vercelli,  and  talk  of  electing  a  new  king  was 
echoed  by  Leo  to  the  Emperor.  Still  the  sturdy  Bishop,  although  hard 
beset,  held  out  and  even  gained  ground.  With  his  fellow-prelates  of 
Pavia  and  Novara  and  some  of  the  Aleramid  Marquesses  he  captured 
Santhia  from  Hubert  the  Red.  It  was  fortunate  for  him  that  the  Alera- 
mids  were  partly  on  his  side,  and  the  Otbertines  crippled  by  the  captivity 
of  two  of  their  number^ 

^  For  these  letters  of  Leo,  and  comment  on  them,  see  Bloch,  Beitrage  zur 
Geschichte  des  Bischofs  Leo  v.    Vercelli  n.  seiner  Zeit  in  Neues  Archiv,  xxil. 

^  See  above,  pp.  15-19.  Bloch,  op.  cit.,  points  out  that  Henry  H's  campaign  in 
Burgundy  was  probably  directed  against  the  danger  which  thence  threatened  his 
Italian  kingship. 

^  The  crucial  phrase  in  Leo's  letter  i.  (Bloch,  op.  cit.  p.  17)  is  as  follows  :  "  Main- 
fredus  cum  filiis  Ardoini  pervasit  Iporeiam  et  communiter  cives  sibi  jurare  fecit."  Does 
this  mean  that  Ulric-Manfred  (here  unquestionably  intended,  see  Bloch,  op.  cit.) 
was  exercising  the  rights  he  claimed  as  Marquess  of  Ivrea  by  imperial  appoint- 
ment, or  was  he  engaged  in  private  conquest?  The  series  of  events,  given  in  the 
text,  and  the  fact  that  Leo  is  doing  his  best  to  stir  up  Henrj^'s  wrath  by  an  account 
of  Ulric-Manfred's  misdemeanours,  seem  to  me  to  be  decisive  for  the  latter  view. 
It  is  also  quite  possible  that  sibi  only  refers  to  the  Jiliis  Ardoini. 

^  Two  of  the  latter,  Hugh  and  Obizzo,  had  escaped.  It  is  doubtful  whether 
Obizzo  was  an  Otbertine  (see  Bresslau,  Ko7irad  II,  i.  p.  418),  but  he  would  do 
very  well  for  the  hitherto  unidentified  "  Ubertus  cognatus  Mainfredi"  of  Leo's  letters 
III.  and  IV.,  Manfred's  wife  being  an  Otbertine. 


Ulric-Manfred's  anti-German  policy  173 

Then  we  find  the  imperiaHsts  gaining  the  upper  hand.  With  the 
Bishops  of  Parma  and  Novara,  with  two  Aleramids  and  the  Canossan 
Boniface,  Leo  besieges  the  castle  of  Orba,  at  the  Emperor's  command. 
In  vain  the  rebels  ravaged  the  episcopal  lands  of  Vercelli  and  Ivrea.  At 
last  Ulric-Manfred,  Bishop  Alric  and  their  allies  marched  against  Leo ; 
but  they  dared  not  offer  battle,  and  sought  for  a  parley.  Ulric-Manfred 
expounded  the  state  of  things  in  a  few  words.  "  Your  knights,"  he  said, 
"  do  not  wish  to  capture  Orba,  and  will  disperse  before  you  can  do  so ; 
but,  although  the  Emperor  hates  me,  I  will  persuade  William  (the 
Aleramid)  to  burn  the  castle,  if  only  he  can  have  back  his  knights  who 
continue  the  rebellion  of  King  Ardoin  "  (and  apparently  then  in  cap- 
tivity). Leo  agreed ;  the  castle  was  burnt ;  and  we  are  told  that  Ulric- 
Manfred  and  his  brother  are  seeking  pardon  ^ 

This  is  all  we  hear  of  the  strife;  but  probably  the  hostiUties  in  which 
Ulric-Manfred  was  engaged  with  his  cousin  Ardoin  V"  were  not  dis- 
connected with  it.  Like  the  Aleramids  the  Ardoinids  would  thus  be 
divided  in  politics.  No  doubt  many  other  of  the  great  stocks,  among 
whom  so  much  of  Italian  land  was  portioned,  were  in  the  same  case ; 
for  when  Henry  II  held  an  assembly  of  his  Italian  kingdom  at  Strass- 
burg,  one  Capitulian  he  promulgated  enacted  special  penalties  for  the 
slaying  of  a  relative.  Rights  to  the  dead  man's  inheritance  were  lost  by 
the  slayer,  whose  own  property  escheated  to  the  king-'. 

In  these  years  Ulric-Manfred  appears  to  keep  in  the  background ; 
sullenly  hostile  and  barely  pardoned,  we  may  presume.  But  in  102 1 
came  the  news  that  the  Emperor  had  decided  on  a  third  Italian  cam- 
paign. The  effect  of  the  intelligence  on  Ulric-Manfred  was  peculiar. 
On  the  6th  June  he  and  his  wife  Bertha  executed  a  deed  of  sale  of 
their  property  stretching  through  fourteen  counties  and  estimated  at 
1,000,000  jugera  in  extent.  The  purchaser  was  a  certain  priest,  Sigi- 
fred,  son  of  Adelgis,  and  the  price  was  100,000  silver  denarii.     We  can 

'  Bloch,  op.  fit.  Letter  iv.  "  Interim  dum  hec  obsidio  fit,  Wilielmus  meum  episco- 
patum  vastavit...[Ma]infredus  facto  colloquio  cum  Uberto  et  Uberto  et  [Wijberto  et 
filiis  Ardoini  vastavit  totum  Iporiensem  episcopatum  et  illos  milites  qui  episcopo 
servire  [v]oluerunt.  Hoc  facto,  cum  militibus...et  cum  episcopo  Astensi  versus  nos 
iter  Mainfredus  cum  Wilielmo  incepil,  et  quia  vincere  non  potuit,  colloquium  mecum, 
cum  Alberto,  cum  Bonifacio  et  cum  episcopis  expetivit.  Consilium  tale  Mainfredus 
dedit  occulte:  "  Scio  quia  vestri  milites  castellum  capere  nolunt  et  cito,  vobis  nolenti- 
bus,  recedent.  .Si  vultis,  quamvis  imperator  me  odio  habeat,  tamen  faciam  quod 
Wilielmus  castellum  incendet,  si  milites  suos  qui  mortuum  Ardoinum  adhuc  ut  vivum 
regnare  faciunt,  sibi  habere  potuerit.  Et  honoratius  est  imperio  et  vobis  ut  castellum 
incendatur  quam  vobis  nolentibus  remaneat Quia  aliter  nequivimus,  hoc  fecimus." 

-  Chron.  Noval.  App.  IX.  (CipoUa,  Mon.  Noval.  II.  2y6),  "  Illo  namque  tempore 
(c.  1013)  magna  persecutio  erat  inter  Ardoinum  et  Maginfredum." 

•'  Hirsch-Bresslau,  Heinrich  II,  iii.  140-1. 


174  The  later  Ardoinids 

hardly  doubt  the  sale  was  a  fiction,  but  every  appearance  of  reality  was 
carefully  kept  up,  Countess  Bertha's  brother  and  nephew,  both  Adal- 
berts, duly  certifying  that  she  acted  under  no  duress  from  her  husband'. 
Clearly  Ulric- Manfred  was  in  fear  of  confiscation  by  the  Emperor. 
Was  it  for  unpardoned  rebellion,  or  had  Ardoin  V  got  killed  in  these 
private  wars"  and  the  Marquess  in  consequence  come  under  the  new 
Capitulum  ? 

But  nothing  happened.  In  102 1-2  Henry  II  came  and  went. 
Ulric-Manfred  did  not  venture  to  approach  him ;  but  the  pious 
Emperor  approved  his  dealings  with  the  Abbey  of  Breme^  and  did  not 
enter  his  mark.  The  Marquess  must  have  learnt  with  joy  that  the 
German  army  had  recrossed  the  Alps,  and,  when  he  later  heard  of  the 
Emperor's  death  on  the  13th  July  1024,  he  plunged  at  once  into  eager 
plottings  to  sever  Italy  from  Germany.  It  was  the  last  chance  in  that 
century. 

An  assembly  seems  to  have  been  held  by  the  Italian  magnates  soon 
after  Henry  II's  death,  in  order  to  elect  a  new  king.  But  no  decision 
was  come  to.  In  all  probability  the  episcopate  already  declared  for 
accepting  the  king  that  Germany  might  elect  and  thus  maintaining  the 
imperial  system.  But  the  Marquesses  were  not  inclined  to  see  their 
power  waste  away  further,  and  warned  by  Ardoin's  failure,  looked  for 
outside  help.  Nothing  was  to  be  hoped  from  neighbouring  Burgundy, 
distracted  by  anarchy  as  it  was  and  ripening  for  the  German  dominion. 
So  an  embassy  was  sent  by  the  plotting  magnates  to  the  King  of  France 
to  offer  him  the  crown.  How  great  a  share  Ulric-Manfred  must  have 
borne  in  this  decision  is  obvious,  both  from  the  geographical  position 
of  his  mark,  which  commanded  the  routes  from  the  West  to  Italy,  and 
from  the  pains  Conrad  II  took  later  to  conciliate  him.  However, 
King  Robert  of  France  refused  the  proffered  kingship  both  for  himself 
and  his  eldest  son  Hugh ;  and  the  Italian  ambassadors  at  once  turned 
to  Duke  William  V,  the  Great,  of  Aquitaine.  Of  all  foreign  potentates 
the  Duke  was  questionless  the  best  candidate.  His  then  wife  was  an 
Anscarid,  daughter  of  Otto-William  of  Burgundy;  he  was  cousin  of 
Eudes  of  Champagne,  the  rival  of  the  German  Kings  in  Burgundy,  and 
he  was  specially  well  acquainted  with  Italy  owing  to  his  frequent  pil- 
grimages to  Rome.  None  the  less  he  promptly  declined  the  crown  for 
himself,  even  though  fraught  with  the  glittering  lure  of  a  coronation  at 

*  See  Bresslau,  Konrad  II,  I.  pp.  374-5.  Car.  Reg.  L.  {Carte  del  Pinerokse, 
B.S.S.S.  III.  2,  p.  172).  This  gives  the  hst  of  counties  of  102 1.  Sigifred  son  of 
Adalgis,  who  also  appears  as  Suffred  son  of  Algis,  seems  to  have  entered  into  Bertha's 
dower  after  Ulric-Manfred's  death.     See  below,  p.  203. 

2  He  was  dead  by  1026  :  see  below,  p.  176.  The  day  of  his  death  was  9  September. 
See  Necrol.  S.  Solutoris,  TtiHn  {M.H.P.  Script,  iii.  225). 

^  See  below,  p.  182,  n.  i. 


Ulric- Manfred's  anti-German  policy  175 

Rome  and  the  Empire  of  the  West.  He  was  already  fifty-six  years  old 
for  one  thing.  For  his  son  he  was,  however,  less  unbending.  After  a 
considerable  hesitation  he  gave  consent  to  the  younger  William's  ac- 
ceptance of  the  kingship,  on  condition  that  all  the  Italian  Marquesses 
and  Bishops  and  other  great  nobles  supported  the  election.  There- 
upon the  envoys  took  oath  to  use  all  their  power  to  obtain  this  general 
consent  and  confer  on  the  younger  William  both  the  royal  and  imperial 
crowns.     They  then  departed  homewards. 

Duke  William  V  at  once  set  himself  to  pave  the  way  for  his  expe- 
dition. He  succeeded  in  inducing  King  Robert  to  threaten  the  western 
German  frontier,  and  to  be  reconciled  with  Count  Eudes  H  of  Cham- 
pagne. But  in  Italy  he  was  less  successful,  although  he  went  thither 
in  person  and  undertook  long  negotiations.  The  Bishops,  headed  by 
Aribert  of  Milan  and  Leo  of  Vercelli,  were  obdurate.  At  Whitsuntide 
1025  the  Archbishop  and  some  of  his  party  were  at  the  Diet  held  by 
the  new  German  King,  Conrad  II,  at  Constance,  and  promised  their 
aid  and  submission,  when  he  should  cross  the  Alps  with  his  army. 
The  Marquesses  on  William's  side  were  at  their  wits'  end  to  deal  with 
this  opposition.  Some  desperately  proposed  to  remove  the  self-willed 
Bishops  and  appoint  submissive  ones.  But  Ulric-Manfred  and  his 
brother  Alric  were  for  no  such  reckless  course,  although  they  would  not 
quite  give  up  the  scheme.  Duke  William,  who  was  a  pious  prince,  of 
course  refused  his  consent  to  the  sacrilegious  scheme  and  returned  to 
Aquitaine  in  October  1025,  quite  disillusioned.  He  begged  Ulric- 
Manfred,  in  a  letter  which  has  come  down  to  us,  to  find  means  to  drop 
the  scheme  quietly,  or,  if  it  must  proceed,  only  to  do  so  with  Arch- 
bishop Aribert's  and  Leo  of  Vercelli's  consent.  Such  an  impossible 
condition  ended  the  negotiations.  William's  letter  shows  a  profound 
distrust  of  his  Italian  supporters ;  but  in  a  later  epistle  to  Leo  of  Ver- 
celli he  absolves  them  of  any  breach  of  faith,  and  particularly  praises 
the  character  of  Ulric-Manfred  and  his  brother \ 

The  outcome  of  the  scheme  shows  clearly  how  firmly  rooted  in 
Italy  the  German  monarchy  was  by  means  of  its  episcopal  officials. 
The  great  nobility,  weakened  by  the  subdivision  of  their  lands  and  the 
decay  of  the  public  powers  with  which  many  of  them  were  invested, 

'  This  narrative  is  abstracted  from  Bresslau,  Konrad  II,  i.  72-81,  106-9.  The 
letter  to  Manfred  is  printed  in  Bouquet,  A'.  F.  et  G.  Script,  x.  483,  that  to  Leo,  id.  X. 
484.  In  the  latter  William  says:  "  prudens  marchio  Maginfridus  nee  frater  ejus 
Alricus  bonus  episcopus,  quorum  me  sanissimo  plerumque  uti  consilio  nunquam 
poenituit,  quos  supra  omnes  Italos  praestantioris  ingenii,  fidei,  et  bonitatis  esse 
censeo."  Bresslau's  dating  of  the  letters  seems  certain.  What  William  distrusted 
is  not  clear,  but  evidently  the  support  promised  him  was  not  given ;  and  probably 
without  guarantees  on  the  Bishops'  question  his  partizans  refused  to  risk  anything 
for  him. 


176  The  later  Ardoinids 

and  on  none  too  good  terms  with  the  lesser  landowners,  the  secundi 
milites,  were  unable  to  resist  it.  For  the  present  the  Bishops,  besides 
the  strength  they  drew  from  their  immunities  on  the  country-side,  were 
able  in  large  measure  to  head  the  citizen-class  in  virtue  of  the  public 
powers  they  possessed  over  their  cathedral  cities,  from  which  the 
Counts  were  frequently  excluded  in  the  Bishops'  favour.  The  latter, 
indeed,  were  rapidly  obtaining  the  actual  counties,  but  perhaps  this  was 
not  eventually  a  source  of  strength,  since  it  identified  them  too  much 
with  the  greater  nobility. 

In  February  1026  Conrad  II  and  a  powerful  army  reached  Italy  by 
the  Brenner,  and  he  was  duly  crowned  by  Archbishop  Aribert  of  Milan 
in  March.  Easter,  which  fell  on  the  loth  April,  he  celebrated  at  Ver- 
celli  with  the  loyal  Leo,  whose  last  festival  it  was,  for  he  died  in  Easter 
week.  He  next  proceeded  to  attack  the  now  rebel  Marquesses,  headed 
by  Adalbert  the  Otbertine  and  William  the  Aleramid.  Orba,  the  castle 
which  had  resisted  Bishop  Leo  in  10 16  and  must  have  been  restored 
since,  was  taken  with  places  of  lesser  note^  It  is  probably  to  this  date 
that  we  should  assign  two  royal  diplomas  which  were  all-important  for 
the  Ardoinids.  One,  unhappily  lost,  was  in  favour  of  Ulric-Manfred 
himself  ^  The  other,  which  is  still  preserved,  is  the  confirmation.  Car. 
Reg.  Lxiv.'\  of  their  possessions  given  to  Boso  and  Guido,  the  two  sons 
of  Ardoin  V,  and  ancestors  of  the  House  of  Romagnano.  These 
diplomas  mark  the  reconciliation  of  the  House  of  Turin  to  Conrad  II, 
and  their  acceptance  of  the  Romano-Germanic  Empire.  As  I  have 
had  before  occasion  to  insist*,  Conrad  II  and  his  successors  were 
thoroughly  alive  to  the  importance  of  securing  the  West  Alpine  passes. 
Not  only  (as  Ulric-Manfred's  alliance  with  Duke  William  had  just 
shown)  was  this  a  necessary  condition  of  the  safety  of  their  Italian 
domination,  all  French  and  Western  rivalry  being  held  far  aloof:    but 

^  Bresslau,  op.  cit.  \.  pp.  121-5. 

^  Bresslau,  op.  cit.  I.  p.  376,  n.  3.  Ten-aneo,  Adelaide... illustrata,  II.  p.  120. 
The  diploma  or  a  copy  of  it  was  seen  by  the  Papal  Notary  Michelantonio  Rossi  of 
Ivrea  in  1707;  as  it  was  granted  by  King  Conrad,  it  must  fall  before  the  imperial 
coronation  in  February  1027.  But  it  may  belong  to  the  winter  when  Conrad  was  at 
Ivrea.  The  same  doubt  applies  to  Car.  Reg.  LXiv.  which  has  neither  date  nor  place 
of  granting  mentioned. 

3  M.  G.H.  Dipl.  IV.  83.  No  date  or  place ;  but  Conrad  is  still  only  king. 
That  Boso  and  Guido  were  Ardoin  V's  sons  is  made  probable  by  the  chronology. 
Ardoin  V's  activity  after  his  father's  death  dates  from  999-1020,  being  already  married 
by  1000  (Will.  Men.  Chron.  xv.  M.H.P.  Script,  ill.  260).  They  appear  in  1026. 
They  are  both  dead,  and  Guide's  son  Ulric  of  full  age  and  married  in  1040. 
Ardoin  III  had  died  c.  976 ;  Oddo  I,  c.  996.  Thus  we  have  generations  of  twenty 
years  in  this  early  marrying  age.  Ardoin  IV  would  hardly  outlive  his  two  brothers  by 
twenty  years. 

■*  See  above,  pp.  31,  100. 


Ulric- Manfred  and  Conrad   II  177 

also  a  new  route  to  Italy  was  thus  provided  for  the  imperial  armies,  by 
means  of  the  control  of  the  Western  Alps.  Thus  North  Italy  could  be 
held  in  a  vice,  and  hostile  forces  taken  in  the  rear.  I  think  a  definite 
scheme  can  be  made  out.  Burgundy  was  to  be  (and  soon  was  in  1034) 
annexed.  Then  on  each  side  of  the  Alps  the  passes  of  the  Great 
St  Bernard  and  the  Mont  Cenis  were  to  be  entrusted  to  a  single  loyal 
House,  the  Savoyards  in  Burgundy,  the  Ardoinids  in  Italy,  and  those 
two  Houses  were  to  be  bound  to  the  imperial  dynasty  by  continual 
favour  and  by  family  alliance  ^  Not  that  the  policy  here  suggested 
sprang  into  existence  full-grown  in  1026,  or  that  the  control  of  the 
passes  was  the  sole  reason  of  the  favour  shown  to  the  Ardoinids.  On 
the  one  point,  the  policy  was  slowly  mapped  out  and  added  to,  perhaps 
Ivrea  being  given  (if  it  ever  was)  in  1026-7,  primogeniture  being  en- 
couraged", and  finally  both  sides  of  the  Alps  being  placed  under  the 
Humbertines  by  the  marriage  of  Oddo  I  and  Adelaide^  On  the 
second,  it  has  been  shown'*  that  the  Emperors  were  evidently  anxious 
to  find  some  counterweight  to  their  too  powerful  friends  the  Canossan 
Marquesses,  who  by  the  observance  of  primogeniture  and  by  the  acqui- 
sition of  Tuscany  became  shortly  the  greatest  House  in  Italy,  and 
formidable  rivals  to  the  Franconian  dynasty  itself. 

In  the  autumn  Conrad  was  again  marching  westwards  across  the 
Lombard  plain,  holding  assemblies  of  the  submissive  and  crushing  the 
rebels.  Among  the  latter  was  the  city  of  Ivrea,  which  Conrad  carried 
by  assault,  and  where  he  kept  his  Christmas.  Who  headed  the  re- 
sistance we  do  not  know,  but  presumably  it  was  some  members  of  the 
Anscarid  stock,  possibly  Ardoin's  sons.  Conrad's  characteristically 
thorough  procedure,  so  different  from  the  methods  of  his  predecessor, 
bore  fruit  here  as  usual.  Piedmont  ceased  to  be  in  danger.  In  case 
Ulric- Manfred  ever  had  Ivrea  added  to  his  mark,  which  as  we  have 
seen  is  extremely  doubtfuP,  it  must  have  been  at  this  time,  when  he 
had  become  the  Emperor's  friend.  Meantime  Rudolf  of  Burgundy 
saw  himself  threatened  from  the  south,  and  as  we  know  at  length 
became  decided  in  his  policy".  Soon  after  Conrad  II  marched  south 
to  Rome,  where  he  was  crowned  Emperor  in  February  1027.  But 
his  further  doings  on  this  campaign  do   not  concern  the  Ardoinids. 

^  c.  1080,  "  (Henricus  IV)  hanc  (Adelaidem)  tamen  offendere  ratus  non  esse 
sibi  integrum,  eo  quod  regni  quodammodo  claves  et  Longobardiae  teneret  aditum." 
Willelm.  Monach.  Vi.  Benedicti  S.  Mich.  CI.  Abb.  {M.H.P.  Script,  in.  292). 

^  See  above,  p.  155,  and  below,  pp.  208,  216-17,  223-4. 

*  See  below,  p.  221. 

*  e.g.  Hellmann,  Die  Grafeii  v.  Savoyen,  etc.  pp.  16-17. 

*  See  above,  pp.  170-1. 

*  See  above,  pp.  25-7. 

P.  O.  12 


178  The  later  Ardoinids 

The  impression  he  had  made  in  west  Lombardy  was  prodigious ; 
only  the  Devil  it  was  there  thought  could  be  responsible  for  so  much 
success'. 

It  does  not  appear  whether  Ulric-Manfred  took  a  personal  share  in 
the  Burgundian  campaign  of  1034,  although  doubtless  his  levies  were 
sent  to  it^.  Thus  it  seems  best  here  to  turn  to  the  Ardoinids'  achieve- 
ments in  the  arts  of  peace,  i.e.,  to  their  monastic  policy,  especially  as 
Ulric-Manfred  was  zealous  in  that  direction  in  the  years  1025-30.  We 
have  seen  that  his  uncle  Oddo  I  c.  995  founded  the  priory  of  PoUenzo 
under  Breme-Novalesa^.  This  began  the  monastic  work  in  Aurade ; 
but  Ardoin  V,  Oddo  I's  son,  was  concerned  in  a  far  more  important 
foundation,  that  of  the  famous  abbey  of  S.  Michele  della  Chiusa*. 

It  was  about  the  close  of  997  that  St  John  Vincenzo,  a  disciple  of 
the  more  famous  St  Romuald,  resigned  the  archbishopric  of  Ravenna 
which  he  had  held  since  982,  and  came  to  fix  his  hermitage  among  the 
woods  on  Monte  Caprasio  (by  the  present  Celle)  at  the  mouth  of  the 

^  Bresslau,  op.  cit.  I.  133-43  and  188.  The  Devil-story  is  from  Radulphus  Glaber, 
IV.  2,  M.G.H.  Script,  vii.  67. 

^  See  above,  pp.  34-6. 

^  See  above,  pp.  149-50. 

•*  I  here  follow  Padre  Savio's  view  that  the  foundation  of  Chiusa  is  to  be  dated 
998-1000,  not  in  966  as  once  (c.  262-3)  stated  by  our  authority  Willelmus  Monachus 
(M.H.P.  Script.  III.  251-66).  But  the  latter  places  the  foundation  under  Otto  III, 
Pope  Sylvester  II  and  Bishop  Amizo  of  Turin  (ob.  999),  and  gives  as  first  Abbot 
Advertus,  who  had  been  Abbot  of  Lezat  c.  983-7,  and  who  dies  shortly  after  the 
building.  For  the  contrary  opinion  (maintained  against  Provana  before  Padre  Savio's 
articles)  see  Carutti,  II  conte  Uinberto  I  e  il  re  Ardoino,  App.  iv.  pp.  347-53.  Padre 
Savio's  views  are  given  in  his  Sulh  origini  delP  Abazia  di  S.  Michele  della  Chiusa, 
1888 ;  and  with  some  modifications  by  G.  E.  Ranieri  in  his  excellent  Sacra  di 
S.  Michele  (Parte  11.  Cap.  i.  esp.  pp.  161-8).  I  have  ventured  to  take  a  slightly 
varying  view  as  to  the  churches.  There  are  archaeologically  three  :  (i)  the  primitive 
Longobardic  chapel ;  (ii)  the  second  church  ;  (iii)  the  undoubtedly  later  present  one. 
Padre  Savio  attributes  (ii)  with  the  monastery  to  Hugh  le  Descousu  with  whom 
St  John  Vincent  would  "cooperate."  Ranieri,  in  view  of  the  foundation  being 
attributed  to  St  John  in  the  twelfth  century,  argues  that  St  John  built  (ii)  and  that 
Hugh  added  the  monastery,  perhaps  completing  the  church  (for  Will.  Mon.  c.  262 
says  :  "  ad  perficiendam  ecclesiae  fabricam  ").  But  Willelmus  Monachus'  story  clearly 
implies  that  St  John's  church  was  mainly  of  wood.  Hence  we  cannot  expect  to  find 
many  remains  of  it.  He  probably  restored  and  roofed  in  (i) :  and  Hugh  would  build 
(ii)  and  the  monastery.  Thus  there  is  no  need  to  explain  away  Willelmus  Monachus' 
account  as  to  either  St  John  or  Hugh  building  a  church.  I  ought  to  say  that  in 
accepting  the  date  998-JOOo  we  have  to  explain  Radulphus  Glaber's  statement  {Vi. 
S.  Guile lmi...Divion.  Acta  SS.  Jan.  I.  p.  59)  that  St  William  of  Dijon  during  his 
residence  at  Lucedio  (which  ended  in  987)  went  to  the  "  monastery  "  of  St  Michael  in 
the  Alps,  and  prayed  in  the  church,  by  saying  that  the  Lombard  chapel  was  there  in 
987,  and  that  the  "monastery"  existed  in  Ralph  Glaber's  day  c.  1025  ;  and  has  thus 
slipped  into  his  narrative. 


The  foundation  of  S.   Michele  della  Chiusa      179 

Val  di  Susa  just  beyond  the  defile  where  Desiderius  and  his  Lombards 
held  Charlemagne  at  bay.  It  has  been  suggested'  that  he  had  pre- 
viously inhabited  the  same  locaUty  in  his  earlier  hermit-life  before  he 
became  archbishop;  but  this  must  remain  a  mere  conjecture.  Opposite 
his  cell  on  the  other  side  of  the  valley  there  rose  the  conical  peak  of 
Monte  Pirchiriano",  covered  like  Caprasio  with  woods;  and  it  was  not 
long  before  the  Saint  received  a  special  intimation  from  the  Archangel 
Michael  that  he  should  raise  a  sanctuary  in  his  honour.  No  spot  was 
prescribed,  but,  when  John  Vincenzo  set  about  hewing  wood  for  the 
erection,  the  logs  were  transported  in  the  night  by  angelic  hands  to  the 
summit  of  Monte  Pirchiriano.  There  accordingly  the  Saint  finished  his 
little  church,  and  obtained  Bishop  Amizo  of  Turin's  consent  to  conse- 
crate it.  The  Bishop  came,  but  in  the  night  a  column  of  fire  descended 
on  the  hill,  and  he  found  the  church  already  consecrated  by  obvious 
miracles  ^ 

So  far  the  story.  The  mount  had  almost  certainly  been  the  seat  of 
the  worship  of  some  Alpine  god — there  is  evidence  of  a  Roman  build- 
ing where  the  church  stands — whose  nature  can  be  conjectured  from 
that  of  his  Christian  successor.  He  had  slain  the  monster  who  once 
preyed  on  the  country  round  from  that  height,  whether  a  divinity  still 
more  ancient,  real  beast  or  dragon  of  darkness''.  In  Christian  times, 
perhaps  under  the  Lombards,  a  small  rock-scooped  church  was  substi- 
tuted, of  which  fragments  still  remain  in  the  present  crypto 

Not  long  after  a  wicked  Auvergnat  knight,  Hugues  le  Descousu  (de 
Montboissier*'),  when  on  pilgrimage  at  Rome,  was  set  by  his  countryman 
Pope  Sylvester  the  construction  of  a  monastery  as  a  penance  for  his 
sins.  During  his  return  to  France  he  halted  at  Susa,  and  decided  on 
Monte  Pirchiriano  as  the  site.  It  was  just  the  place  which  would 
appeal  to  the  Roman  pilgrim,  situated  as  it  was  at  the  end  of  the  Alpine 

^  Ranieri,  op.  cit.  p.  147.  For  St  John  Vincenzo's  identification  and  date,  see 
Savio,  op.  cit.  pp.  41  ff. 

^  It  has  been  suggested  (Ranieri,  op.  cit.  p.  154,  n.  i)  that  Porcariano  is  the  real 
form,  from  the  pigs  feeding  there.  Certainly  Henry  III  seems  to  call  it  so  (Car.  Reg. 
CXXVI.;  D'Achery,  Spicikgium,  ed.   II.   III.  386). 

*  Willelm.  Monach.  Chron.  S.  Mich,  de  Cltisa,  iv.-xi.  [M.H.P.  Script,  in.  252-6). 
William  adds  the  "tendenzios"  statement  that  Amizo  freed  the  church  from  his 
successors'  secular  domination. 

•*  So  it  was  at  the  Norman  Mt  St  Michel,  where  we  have  the  legend  of  King 
Arthur  slaying  the  ogre  (Alort  (T Arthur,  v.  5),  and  at  Cornish  Mt  St  Michael,  where 
Jack  the  Giant-killer  plays  a  similar  role.  The  conical  isolated  hill  seems  essential  to 
the  fane  and  the  story. 

'  It  must  have  been  at  this  sanctuary  that  St  William  of  Uijon  prayed.  See  above, 
p.  178,  n.  4. 

'  For  Hugues'  ancestry  and  descendants  and  the  family  possessions,  see  Savio, 
Suite  origini  deW Abazia  di  S.  Michele  della  Chiusa^  pp.  19  ff. 


i8o  The  later  Ardoinids 

transit  over  the  Mont  Cenis,  where  trade  and  movement  were  reviving 
after  the  disappearance  of  the  Saracens,  and  where  there  were  no  hos- 
pitable monks  since  those  of  Novalesa  had  removed  to  Turin  and 
Breme.  Hugh's  first  measure  was  to  acquire  the  alod  of  the  Mount. 
He  proceeded  back  to  Avigliana  where  Ardoin  V,  its  owner \  was  then 
residing  and  bought  it  outright.  Then  in  concert  with  St  John  Vin- 
cenzo,  he  appointed  Adverius,  ex-Abbot  of  Lezat,  who  was  then  at 
Susa,  first  Abbot,  and  himself  left  for  home  to  raise  money  for  the 
building.  At  the  promised  time  he  returned  and  this  time  bought  the 
township  of  Chiusa  from  the  thrifty  Ardoin.  The  last  benefit  he  con- 
ferred on  his  foundation  was  the  obtaining  of  bull  and  precept  from 
Sylvester  H  and  Otto  HI,  which  confirmed  its  status  and  possessions^. 
St  John  Vincent  was  already  dead  in  January  looo^,  nor  did  Advertus 
long  survive.  The  next  Abbot  was  the  great  Benedict  I  who  was 
elected  c.  1002^,  under  whom  the  new  church  and  buildings,  which  re- 
placed the  Lombard  chapel  and  St  John  Vincenzo's  wooden  additions 
to  it,  were  no  doubt  completed.  Ardoin  V  did  not  only  sell  his  favours. 
He  gave  several  domains  to  the  Abbey,  to  which  his  cousin  Hugh 
probably  added  Chivasso^  In  fact  the  improvement  of  the  Mont 
Cenis  route  and  the  recovery  of  the  Val  di  Susa  for  civilization  furnished 
secular  motives  which  would  influence  the  Ardoinids,  as  well  as  the 
obvious  religious  ones.  The  Marquesses  would  not  be  wholly  uncon- 
scious of  their  duties  as  holders  of  the  "public  power";  they  were  not 
mere  feudal  landowners ;  and  that  day  would  give  them  some  satisfac^ 
tion  qui  primus  ahna  visit  adorea.  It  would  be  hard  to  imagine  a  more 
fitting  or  impressive  site  for  a  monastic  foundation,  than  the  Mount  on 
which  the  Sagra  S.  Michele  now  stands.  Lonely  and  aloof  among  its 
woods,  with  a  prospect  that  extends  far  and  wide  over  the  strath  of  the 
Val  di  Susa  and  the  endless  Lombard  Plain  and  up  to  the  snow-clad 
peaks  of  the  Graian  Alps,  with  the  cultivated  fields  below  and  the  wild 
life  at  its  doors,  the  religious  recluse  could  temper  to  almost  any  mood 
his  daily  meditation.  And  though  the  sanctuary  rose  apart  it  was 
in  full  view  of  the  ways  of  men.     Down  in  the  valley  through  the 

^  This  is  another  sign  that  the  Ardoinids  practised  real  division  of  their  lands. 
See  above,  pp.  15 1-2.  I  think  we  may  trust  the  story  though  with  caution.  See 
below,  p.   234,  n.    i. 

2  Thus  c.  looi.  Willelm.  Monach.  makes  a  difficulty  by  stating  that  a  diploma 
was  obtained  on  this  visit  from  Amizo,  dead  c.  999  (Savio,  Gli  antichi  vescovi, 
pp.  336-7).  But  as  he  makes  the  Bishop  free  the  place  from  all  episcopal  restraints 
and  this  is  not  alluded  to  during  the  controversy  with  Bishop  Cunibert  by  Pope 
Gregory  VII,  his  statement  is  open  to  suspicion.     See  below,  pp.   234-5. 

3  See  Savio,  op.  cit.  p.  337. 
*  Ranieri,  op.  cit.  p.  172. 

5  Car.  Reg.  cxxvi.  (D'Achery,  Spicilegium,  ed.  II.  III.  386). 


Fruttuaria,   Novalesa  and  Pollenzo  i8i 

summer  months  there  passed  a  continuous  stream  of  travellers,  pilgrims, 
merchants  and  adventurers,  the  shifting  links  of  the  chain  that  bound 
Italy  to  the  West.  All  the  pageantry  and  the  pains,  the  sudden  chances 
and  the  long  unceasing  effort  of  human  existence  were  there  unrolled 
day  by  day.  How  many  tales  must  the  hospitable  monks  have  heard 
in  their  guest-chamber,  all  the  varied  shapes  of  life  passing  bright  and 
fevered  through  the  very  midst  of  the  sacred  monotony  of  the  rule. 

We  next  find  the  Ardoinids  as  benefactors  of  the  neighbouring 
Fruttuaria  between  1003  and  10 14.  Ulric-Manfred,  his  wife  Bertha, 
his  brothers  Bishop  Alric  and  Oddo  II,  and  Ardoin  V  among  them 
gave  lands  in  the  counties  of  Turin,  Ivrea  and  Aurade^  Oddo  II  we 
find  again  later  making  a  grant  of  land  at  Rivalta  to  St  Peter's  Monas- 
tery at  Turin  -.  This  is  a  bare  fact ;  but  of  Ardoin  V's  dealings  with 
Novalesa  we  have  quite  a  history.  Already  by  10 14,  he  had  added 
Cavallerleone  and  Magra  to  his  father's  gift  of  Pollenzo^.  Now 
c.  10 14*  Abbot  Geoffrey  appointed  one  of  his  monks,  named  Oddo, 
Prior  of  the  latter  dependency.  Oddo  was  only  a  monk  by  necessity. 
He  had  been  badly  wounded  in  some  battle  and  his  hopes  in  the  world 
were  thus  disappointed.  But  his  ambition  and  zeal  to  play  a  great 
part  lived  on  under  the  cowl.  Ardoin  V  was  then  at  war  with  Ulric- 
Manfred  and  apparently  in  want  of  money.  The  unscrupulous  Prior  saw 
his  chance,  and  offered  a  bribe  to  the  Marquess,  if  only  he  would 
appoint  him  Abbot  of  Pollenzo.  Ardoin,  however,  objected  that  h' 
father,  Oddo  I,  had  already  given  Pollenzo  absolutely  to  Breme^ 
Thereupon  Prior  Oddo  stole  the  charters  of  the  gift ;  and  now  that 
there  was  nothing  to  show  on  what  tenure  Breme  had  held  the  land, 
Ardoin  V  took  his  protege  to  Rome,  paid  heavy  fees  to  the  Pope  and 
got  him  consecrated  Abbot  of  the  new  abbey  of  Pollenzo.  Geoffrey, 
in  great  indignation  at  the  news,  went  to  Rome  in  his  turn  and  told  the 
whole  story.  The  Pope  was  convinced,  suspended  the  anathema  over 
the  offenders'  heads,  and  declared  Oddo's  appointment  as  Abbot  null. 
Armed  with  the  Papal  brief  Abbot  Geoffrey  could  appeal  to  Ulric- 
Manfred.  The  Marquess  took  up  the  cause — Ardoin  V  vanishes  in  a 
perplexing  way  from  the  story  ;  was  he  dead  naturally  or  killed  ? — and 

1  Car.  Reg.  xxxviii.  {M.  G.H.  Dipl.  iii.  p.  379).  The  places,  where  the  donations 
were,  are  Mathl,  Scarnafigi,  Gassino,  Cortereggio  and  Turin. 

^  Car.  Reg.  XLil.  (Muletti,  Mernorie  storico-diplom.  di  Saluzzo,  I.  p.  148). 

^  Car.  Reg.  xxxix.  (CipoUa,  Mon.  Noval.  i.  p.  134,  M.G.H.  Dipl.  iv.  71). 
I  have  not  been  able  to  find  Magra.     Was  it  part  of  the  Val  di  Maira  ? 

■*  In  1014  Geoffrey  first  appears  as  abbot.  See  Carutti,  Contr.  Umberto  ecc. 
p.  254,  and  CipoUa,  Mon.  Noval.  i.  440.  As  the  Bull  of  1014  (Car.  Reg.  xxxix.) 
confirms  Pollenzo  to  Breme,  it  presumably  dates  from  Geoffrey's  visit  of  protest 
to  Rome  [id.   133-4). 

'  See  above,  pp.  149-50.- 


i82  The  later  Ardoinids 

captured  the  unruly  Prior,  who  was  compelled  to  retire  into  private 
monastic  life^ 

This  tale  happily  explains  why  Oddo  I's  charter  to  Breme  is  not 
preserved ;  but  it  also  illustrates  the  fact  that  a  dependent  monastery 
was  a  valuable  asset  to  a  lay  seigneur,  which  he  might  be  only  too  eager 
to  secure ;  since,  in  view  of  the  journey  to  Rome  and  the  fees  there 
paid,  the  immediate  monetary  inducement  cannot  have  been  over- 
whelming to  Ardoin. 

Of  the  latter  we  now  take  leave.  By  the  younger  of  his  two  sons  he 
was  the  ancestor  of  the  Marquesses  of  Romagnano  ;  but  these  in  spite 
of  high  birth  and  claims  never  played  a  leading  part  in  Piedmontese 
history  ^ 

Ulric-Manfred's  zeal  for  monasticism,  however,  did  not  really  begin 
till  towards  the  close  of  his  life;  for  we  may  omit  Bishop  Alric's  founda- 
tion of  S.  Aniano  in  1024^,  since  it  was  endowed  from  the  revenues  of 
his  see.  Perhaps  the  fact,  which  we  may  guess  at  from  the  entail  of  his 
charters^  that  he  had  only  one  sickly  son,  may  have  had  something  to 
do  with  it,  or  the  good  results  obtained  from  Chiusa  and  Fruttuaria 
may  have  led  him  on.  In  any  case  besides  less  important  donations 
to  S.  Salvatore^  and  S.  Solutore*'  of  Turin,  and  to  SS.  Apostoli  of  Asti^, 
these  years  are  marked  by  two  great  foundations  of  Ulric-Manfred,  that 

^  Chron.  Noval.  App.  IX.  (Cipolla,  Mon.  Noval.  11.  295).  Oddo,  however, 
soon  resumed  his  former  courses,  was  deposed  formally  by  Emperor  Henry  II  in 
a  synod,  then  given  a  priory  by  the  patient  Geoffrey  to  get  him  out  of  the  way,  made 
an  Abbot  by  Alric  of  Asti  (?  of  S.  Dalmazzo),  then  many  years  after  obtained  Breme 
itself,  which  he  tyrannized  over.  I  should  add  that  Count  Cipolla  explains  the  story 
in  the  text  as  an  actual  usurpation  of  Breme  itself.  It  is  hard  to  say  on  what  phrase 
of  the  obscure  chronicler  most  stress  should  be  laid,  but  the  version  in  the  text  seems 
to  me  the  most  consistent.  The  more  important  passages  are  the  following  :  "  Oddo 
...abiit  ad  Ardoinum,  postulatus  est  eum,  pecuniam  dante  atque  pollicente,  ut  ilium 
abbatem  faceret  de  cella  unde  prioratum  habebat.     Marchio  autem  dixit  se  non  posse 

facere,  quia  pater  suus  dederat  Bremetensi  monasterio Statim  quippe  Jude  peda- 

gogus  furatus  est  cartas,  reddidit  Ardoino....Maginfredus  preparat  se  ad  capiendum 
leviathan.  Incepit  et  perfecit.  Insuper  omnibus  modis  juravit,  ita  dicendo :  '  Ego 
Oddo  monachus  diebus  vite  meae  amplius  Bremetensem  abbatiam  non  accipiam, 
neque  sine  licentiam  domni  mei  Gottefredi  abbatis  abbatiam  nee  prioratum  habebo.' " 

^  See  Carutti,  Umberto  I  ecc.  pp.  ■248-9,  and  Bresslau,  op.  cit.  i.  p.  379,  where 
however,  by  a  slip  of  the  pen,  he  forgets  his  own  conclusions  on  pp.  363  and  364  and 
makes  Ardoin  V  son  of  Oddo  II,  not  of  Oddo  I,  which  is  impossible,  as  Ardoin  V  is 
acting  on  his  own  responsibility  by  1014  and  Oddo  II  is  living  in  1016,  not  to  mention 
the  chronological  difficulty. 

=*  Car.  Reg.  LVi.  {Antiche  Carte. ..ct Asti,  B.S.S.S.  xxviii.  p.  304). 

*  See  above,  p.  154)  notes  2  and  4. 

^  Car.  Reg.  LXix.  {Carte  del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  ill.  2,  p.  175),  LXX.  [M.H.P. 
Chart.  I.  472J,  Lxxv.  {M.H.P.  Chart,  i.  477). 

6  Car.  Reg.  Lxxxviii.  {Cartario  S.  Solutore,  B.S.S.S.  xxxvi.  p.  loj. 

■^  Car.  Reg.  LXXXV.  (cf.  Libro  verdc.d'Asti,  il.  200). 


The  foundation  of  Caramagna  and  S.  Giusto     183 

of  the  nunnery  of  Caramagna  in  conjunction  with  his  wife  Bertha,  and 
that  of  the  abbey  of  S.  Giusto  of  Susa,  in  conjunction  with  Bertha  and 
his  brother,  Bishop  Alric. 

The  abbey  of  Caramagna  was  founded  by  Ulric-Manfred  and  his 
wife,  the  28th  May  1028^  Ten  thousa.nd  jugera  of  land  were  assigned 
to  it,  scattered  between  Turin  and  Revello  and  the  sea.  I  may  note 
specially  that  half  of  the  donors'  possessions  in  Val  di  Maira  (and  they 
seem  to  have  owned  all)  were  part  of  the  endowment — another  instance 
of  the  design  of  reclaiming  wasted  territories  in  the  Alps.  Further, 
the  nunnery  is  carefully  exempted  from  any  episcopal  control  and 
placed  under  the  hereditary  protection  of  Ulric-Manfred  and  his  de- 
scendants. Here  again  we  see  how  the  foundation  was  not  intended  to 
strengthen  the  immune  Bishop  of  Turin,  but  the  House  of  the  donors. 

The  monastery  of  S.  Giusto  has,  if  we  may  believe  Ralph  Glaber,  a 
stranger  origin.  He  says  that  a  certain  rascal,  known  under  several 
names,  made  a  living  by  the  "  invention  "  of  saints'  bones,  which  he 
obtained  by  researches  in  churchyards  by  night.  Becoming  too  well 
known  in  France,  he  emigrated  to  the  more  credulous  Alpine  folk. 
Here  he  produced  a  corpse  which  he  declared  to  be  that  of  St  Just  of 
Beauvais.  Under  divine  suffrance  the  powers  of  evil  worked  various 
miracles  through  the  bones  as  the  worthy  inventor  pursued  his  travels. 
Now  Ulric-Manfred  was  then  building  his  monastery  to  the  Virgin 
Mary  at  Susa,  and  was  in  consequence  on  the  ^ta  vive  for  any  reHcs, 
when  Stephen,  to  give  him  one  of  his  names,  entered  the  valley.  The 
Marquess  promptly  seized  on  the  relics,  and  enshrined  them  in  his  new 
foundation  as  authentic  ones.  There  would  appear  to  be  no  good 
reason  for  denying  this  story.  Suspicions  evidently  got  about,  since 
the  bones  of  St  Just  of  Beauvais  were  known  to  be  elsewhere.  So 
gradually  in  the  eleventh  century  a  legend  grew  up  of  a  mythical 
monastery  at  Oulx,  the  denizens  of  which  were  massacred  by  the 
heathen  Lombards,  or  later  by  the  heathen  Saracens,  and  thus  gave 
the  church  the  name  of  Plebs  Martyrum.  And  finally  the  St  Just 
honoured  at  Susa  and  his  companion  at  St  Flavian  were  identified 
with  two  of  these  martyrs,  and  we  have  as  a  result  St  Just  of  Oulx". 

'  Car.  Reg.  Lxviii.  {Carte  di  Caramagna  in  Alisc.  Saluzzese,  B.S.S.S.  xv.  p.  6i). 
For  the  entail  see  above,  p.  154  and  n.  2. 

*  The  story  is  in  Radulph.  Glab.  Hist.  Lib.  iv.  3  (Bouquet,  X.  46)  and,  with 
the  variation  that  the  relics  were  genuine,  in  some  Latin  verses,  Cipolla,  Alon.  Noval. 
I.  416-21.  The  above  view  is  that  of  Padre  Savio,  //  Monastero  di  S.  Giusto  di  Susa, 
Rivista  storica  benedettina,  Anno  II.  Fasc.  VI.  1907,  and  .S".  Giusto  di  Beauvais  e  non 
S.  Giusto  (TOulx,  id.  Anno  iii.  Fasc.  xil.  The  defence  of  St  Just  of  Oulx  is 
undertaken  by  Pere  Kieffer  in  id.  Anno  iii.  Fasc.  x.-xi.  Plebs  Martyrum  appears  in 
reality  to  be  a  corruption  of  the  Roman  "  mansio  ad  Martem"  identical  with  Oulx. 
See  Cartaric.d'Oulx,  B.S.S.S.  XLV.  p.  vi. 


184  The  later  Ardoinids 

However  this  may  be,  the  charter  of  foundation  of  S.  Giusto  di 
Susa  is  dated  the  9th  July  1029 ^  It  was  extraordinarily  richly  en- 
dowed. One-third  of  the  town  and  of  the  whole  valley  of  Susa  was 
given,  the  latter  stretching  from  the  Mont  Genevre  and  Mont  Cenis  to 
Vayes.  We  are  reminded  at  once  that  one-third  was  Ulric-Manfred's 
original  share  of  the  valley  ^  and  wonder  if  it  represented  his  entire 
landed  possessions  there  at  the  date  of  foundation.  Of  course  the 
"  public  powers,"  military,  judicial  and  financial,  did  not  pass.  The 
feudal  jurisdiction  was  yet  in  its  infancy.  But  the  third  of  the  valley 
was  not  all  that  was  given.  Almese,  Rubiana,  Vigone  and  half  Volvera 
were  added  ;  and,  by  a  singular  proceeding,  in  a  duplicate  charter  of 
the  grant  there  were  also  conferred  the  monastery  of  S.  Mauro  Pul- 
cherada,  Sambuy,  Mathi,  Rivalta,  Orbazzano,  etc.*  Thus  at  a  single 
bound  S.  Giusto  became  a  great  abbey.  In  1033*  the  same  donors  in- 
creased their  gifts  by  Mocchie,  Priola,  etc.,  and  the  right  of  pannage 
from  the  sea  to  the  river  Stura.  In  all  this  I  think  may  be  observed 
the  same  anxiety  to  recultivate  the  Alpine  valleys,  and  the  lands  wasted 
by  the  Saracens ;  and  to  civilize  and  facilitate  for  pilgrims  the  great 
thoroughfare  of  the  Mont  Cenis.  Even  so  the  endowment  was  reck- 
lessly generous,  although  Manfred  could  not  foresee  what  powers  land- 
owning would  confer  a  century  later.  On  the  other  hand  the  loyalty  of 
the  two  great  abbeys  of  the  Pass  probably  helped  to  keep  it  for  Ulric- 
Manfred's  descendants  of  Savoy. 

Another  incident  in  monastic  history  casts  light  on  Ulric-Manfred's 
relations  with  his  subjects.  About  February  1027  the  great  Abbot 
Odilo  of  Cluny  obtained  from  the  Emperor  the  vacant  Abbey  of  Nova- 
lesa-Breme  for  his  nephew,  a  younger  Odilo.  But  the  young  scamp  had 
little  resemblance  to  his  sainted  uncle;  he  surrounded  himself  with  a 
band  of  jovial  knights,  and,  worse  still,  enfeoffed  to  them  the  lands  which 
provided  victuals  for  his  subordinate  monks.  The  Emperor's  patience 
wore  out  and  he  granted  the  abbey  as  a  benefice  to  Bishop  Alberic  of 
Como.  Both  monks  and  Abbot,  however,  resisted  this  fresh  charge  on 
them,  and  the  Bishop  found  it  best  to  implore  the  aid  of  Ulric-Manfred 
and  his  brother  Alric  to  capture  Abbot  Odilo  and  compel  his  submis- 
sion. Openly  they  dared  not  act,  for  they  feared  the  citizens  of  Turin ; 
so  Odilo  was  lured  into  the  toils  by  an  invitation,  and  then  handed 

1  Car.  Reg.  LXXVi.  (CipoUa,  Carte  di  S.   Guisto,  Bull.  Istit.  stor.  ital.  18,  p.  61). 

2  See  above,  p.  152. 

*  The  second  original's  variants  are  given  by  Cipolla,  Briciole  di  storia  Novalic. 
Bull,  istit.  stor.  ital.  22,  p.  12. 

•*  Car.  Reg.  xciv.  (Cipolla,  Carte  di  S.  Giusto  di  Susa,  Bull.  Istit.  stor.  ital.  18, 
p.  76).  Count  Cipolla  describes  the  document  as  a  false  original.  But  in  substance 
it  seems  genuine.     See,  however,  below,  p.  201,  n.  2. 


Odilo  of  Novalesa.     The  heretics  185 

over  to  Bishop  Alberic.  Thereupon  the  Turinese  rose  in  riot,  appa- 
rently in  a  kind  of  assembly.  They  strove  to  rescue  the  Abbot,  but 
Ulric-Manfred  and  his  knights  were  too  strong  for  them.  And  Alberic 
kept  his  prey  in  durance  vile  until  he  did  fealty.  It  is  true  that  soon 
after  St  Peter  wounded  the  wicked  Bishop  in  the  groin  one  night  at 
Breme.  Alberic  fled  dying  towards  Como,  and  another  Bishop  suc- 
ceeded him  in  the  suzerainty  of  the  abbey.  But  with  him  Ulric- 
Manfred  has  nothing  to  do'.  What  the  story  shows  is  the  rise  of 
independent  action  among  the  citizens  even  in  the  backward  mark  of 
Turin. 

The  last  public  act  we  know  of  Ulric-Manfred  is  related  to  religious 
troubles.  The  great  religious  movement  of  the  eleventh  century  was 
not  wholly  confined  to  the  official  developments  in  the  Church.  It  was 
not  to  be  expected  that  it  should  be,  for  the  causes  of  the  movement 
were  operating  widely  on  varied  states  of  culture,  various  classes, 
natures  of  men,  and  countries.  First  and  foremost,  perhaps,  we  may 
put  the  intense  misery  which  the  populations  had  suffered  in  the  decline 
of  the  Carolingian  Empire.  Of  this  they  were  made  the  more  conscious 
and  the  more  apt  to  seek  a  remedy  from  it,  by  the  revival  which  had 
been  in  progress  ever  since  Otto  the  Great.  Burghers  were  acquiring 
some  independence  in  their  cities ;  serfs  were  safe  from  wild  non- 
Christian  ravage ;  efforts  for  peace  were  being  made  under  the  Church's 
lead  in  spite  of  anarchical  private  war.  Even  the  slowly  growing  feudal 
prerogatives  of  the  lords  were  better  than  mere  disorder;  and  it  is  to  be 
remembered  that,  with  the  decrease  in  the  free  population,  the  grants 
of  immunity  would  have  the  less  effect  on  the  actual  life  of  the  country- 
man. They  might  even  induce  an  improvement  in  it  by  favouring  the 
growth  of  baronial  courts  where  the  serf  could  have  a  standing-ground 
among  his  fellows.  Lastly,  more  culture  and  thought  were  dribbling  in 
from  the  East,  of  which  the  marriage  of  Otto  II  and  the  rise  of  Venice 
are  obvious  evidence. 

Thus  we  find  growing  independence,  growing  prosperity  and  grow- 
ing civilization  fermenting  amid  a  chaos  of  barbarism,  disorder  and 
evil  tyranny.  What  wonder  if  besides  the  strong,  workaday  ideals  of 
the  Holy  Roman  Empire,  and  besides  the  silent  practice  of  united 
action,  which  was  to  bring  forth  the  Communes,  there  was  also  the  less 

^  Chron.  Noval.  App.  v.-vil.  (Cipolla,  Monumenta  Novalic.  II.  292-4).  For  its 
bearing  on  the  decay  of  the  mark,  see  below,  Section  vi.  p.  254.  The  passage 
referring  to  Ulric-Manfred's  action  runs:  (Ulric-Manfred)  "  palam  omnino  nequivit 
facere  quod  optabat  (Albericus).  Timebat  enim  cives  ipsius  civitatis  (Taurini).  Sed 
malum  cetrinum  ipsi  dirigens  mandansque  ut  ad  se  veniret,  et  sic  tradidit.  In 
crastinum  autem  convenientes  omnes  cives  in  unum,  voluerunt  abbatem  eripere  vi,  sed 
predictus  marchio  cum  turba  militare  prevaluit,  interdicens  illis  ne  quid  offenderent. " 


i86  The  later  Ardoinids 

worldly  idea  of  the  Church,  of  flight  from  the  evil  world  and  of  the 
supremacy  of  spiritual  things  ?  Now  the  Church,  ruled  by  statesman- 
like Bishops  and  masterful  Abbots,  cherished  this  ideal,  but  had  also 
common-sense,  and  the  knowledge  of  what  was  practicable.  It  was 
equipped,  too,  with  sober  learning  and  study :  nor  did  it  fail  to  provide 
a  comparatively  harmless  refuge  for  less  balanced  fanaticism.  But 
there  were  other  natures  of  a  wilder  cast,  who  abhorred  a  via  media ; 
other  more  fevered  or  dreamier  minds  to  whom  the  mysticism  that 
crept  along  like  a  strange,  delusive  vapour,  from  the  East,  seemed  to 
offer  a  new  sovran  knowledge  that  annihilated  all  the  old  so  painfully 
acquired.  Hence  it  was  that  the  beginning  of  the  eleventh  century  is 
marked  by  an  outbreak  of  strange  heresies  in  France  and  Italy.  It  is 
impossible  to  judge  of  these  fairly,  as  we  only  know  them  through 
hostile  statements.  But  in  general  they  appear  to  have  been  Mani- 
chaean.  Asceticism  was  the  rule  of  life.  Material  things  and  all  the 
works  of  the  flesh  were  evil.  The  powers  of  the  Catholic  priesthood 
were  denied.  The  Bible-story  was  wholly  allegoric  ^  It  will  be  noticed 
how  like  much  of  this  sounds  to  a  parody  of  medieval  Christianity. 
In  the  eleventh  century  it  seems  that  no  accusation  worse  than  wild 
heresy  was  brought  against  the  professors  of  this  form  of  creed.  Rather 
they  were  mainly  of  exemplary  life.  But  we  can  hardly  deny  that  their 
views  were  destructive  to  organized  human  society. 

Now  a  centre  of  these  heretics  was  at  Monforte  near  Alba.  There 
a  certain  Countess  (of  which  of  the  great  families  ?)  was  a  convert,  and 
all  the  inhabitants  of  the  castle  were  partakers  of  her  error.  The 
knowledge  of  their  doings  spread,  the  unhappy  Countess  was  supposed 
to  be  attended  by  devils,  such  as  those  who  had  made  Conrad  II  and 
Michael  IV  Emperors  by  their  aid,  but  who,  as  it  turned  out,  were 
extremely  inefficient  protectors.  A  guerrilla  war  went  on  between  the 
heretics  and  Ulric-Manfred  and  Alric,  aided  by  other  Marquesses  and 
Bishops ;  and  any  obstinate  wretches,  who  were  captured  and  would 
not  recant,  were  condemned  to  the  flames.  But  the  coup  de  grace  was 
the  work  of  Aribert  of  Milan.  He  came  to  Turin  with  a  large  force  of 
clergy  and  knights,  and  investigated  the  views  of  Gerard,  one  of  the 
Monfortans.  Their  heresy  was  clear  from  Gerard's  answers.  Soon  the 
castle  was  captured  and  the  indwellers  taken  to  Milan  for  conversion. 
They  were  still  obstinate,  and  the  chief  citizens,  in  spite  of  Aribert's 
resistance,  seized  on  them,  built  a  pyre  and  a  cross,  and  offered  them 

1  See  e.g.  Landulf.  Mediol.  ii.  27  [M.G.H.  Script,  viii.  65).  Though  this 
is  a  rather  late  narrative,  the  absence  of  all  accusations  save  those  of  false  doctrine  is 
in  its  favour.  Cf.  Anselm,  Lead.  62-4  {M.G.H.  Script,  vii.  226-8).  Ralph  Glaber 
(iv.  2,  M.G.H.  Script,  vii.)  adds  an  idol  and  animal  sacrifices;  but  that  is  just  the 
kind  of  thing  a  popular  story  such  as  his  goes  astray  on. 


Ulric-Manfred's  death  and  children  187 

their  choice.     Some  gave  way,  but  more  leapt  into  the  flames.     For  a 
time  heresy  in  Italy  was  driven  under  ground '. 

At  the  time  of  these  occurrences  at  Monforte  Ulric-Manfred  was 
not  far  from  his  end.  Before  the  23rd  December  1035  he  was  dead 
and  buried  in  the  cathedral  of  Turin-.  As  the  day  of  his  death  was 
the  29th  of  October  ^  1035  is  the  most  likely  year,  although  1034 
remains  just  possible.  His  son,  if  he  had  really  had  one*,  seems  to 
have  predeceased  him®.  Of  his  daughters  we  know  at  least  three, 
Adelaide,  Irmingarde  or  Immula,  and  Bertha.  The  first  and  her  pos- 
sible duplication  must  be  discussed  in  a  separate  section.  Immula's 
two  German  marriages  are  also  too  closely  connected  with  high  politics 

^  See  Radulph.  Glaber,  Hist.  iv.  2,  where  the  mention  of  Michael  lY  shows  1034 
is  the  earhest  date  for  the  capture  of  the  castle.  Terraneo  [Adelaide... illitstrata, 
Pt  II.  0.  18)  on  this  hint  placed  the  account  of  Aribert's  capture  of  the  castle 
(Landulf.  Mediol.  11.  27  {M.G.H.  vni.  65))  on  the  Archbishop's  return  from 
Burgundy  with  his  army  in  autumn  1034.  But  perhaps  it  happened  later.  Landulf 
does  not  mention  Ulric-Manfred.  Radulph.  Glaber  {loc.  cit.)  says  of  him  :  "  Sepissime 
denique  tam  Mainfredus  marchionum  prudentissimus,  quam  frater  ejus  Alricus 
Astensis  urbis  praesul,  in  cujus  scilicet  diocesi  locatum  habebatur  predictum  castrum 
(this  seems  to  be  an  error),  ceterique  marchiones  ac  presules  circumcirca  creberrimos 
illis  assultus  intulemnt,  capientes  ex  eis  nonnullos,  quos  dum  non  quivissent  revocare 
ab  insania  igne  cremavere." 

*  Car.  Reg.  cm.  (M.H.P.  Chart.  11.  123),  civ.  [M.H.P.  Chart.  11.  121).  He  was 
buried  before  the  altar  of  Sma.  Trinita. 

3  Car.  Reg.  ci.  {Necrol.  S.  Solutoris,  M.H.P.  Script,  in.  227).  For  103-;,  see 
Bresslau,  op.  cit.   i.  376,  and  Terraneo,  op.  cit.   11.  20. 

•*  That  he  had  one  son  who  was  not  expected  to  survive  is  the  impression  given  by 
the  entails  of  Caramagna  and  S.  Giusto  di  Susa  (see  above,  p.  154,  notes  2  and  4). 
The  Annalista  Saxo  {M.G.H.  Script,  vi.  695)  states  that  Adelaide  was  sister  "comitis 
qui  agnominatus  est  de  Monte  Bardonis  in  Italia."  The  Annalist  is  so  well-informed 
on  genealogy  that  one  does  not  like  to  reject  his  statement ;  but  one  would  expect 
a  Marquess  and  Mombardone  is  not  to  be  found.  Bard  (Hellmann,  Die  Grafen 
V.  Savoyen,  p.  13)  is  impossible,  being  in  Aosta  and  Burgundy.  Bardonnecchia 
(Terraneo,  op.  cit.  Pt  li.  c.  23)  is  too  trifling  a  place.  Two  possibilities  are  thus 
suggested  :  (i)  Mombardone  is  the  well-known  district  on  the  route  from  Parma 
to  Pontremoli.  Here  Countess  Bertha's  kindred  had  possessions  (Bresslau,  op.  cit. 
I.  426-7).  Did  her  son  inherit  land  there  (which  is  M.  Renaux'  view,  Le  Mai-quis 
Odon  /"■,  pp.  677-81),  or  is  the  Count  not  Adelaide's  brother  after  all  and  the  text 
corrupt?  (ii)  Mons  Bardonis  is  a  slip  for  Mens  Ferradensis  :  since  Adelaide  was 
either  wife  or  sister-in-law  of  Marquess  Henry  of  the  Aleramids  of  Montferrat. 

"  Car.  Reg.  cm.  (see  above,  n.  2)  has  been  held  (Carutti,  //  conte  Uviba-to  I  ecc. 
p.  332)  to  show  that  "  the  Count  of  Mombardone  "  survived  his  father  Ulric-Manfred  : 
but  as  pointed  out  by  Labruzzi  {La  mottarcliia  di  Savoia,  p.  281)  the  words  "in 
potestatc.Berthe  comitisse  aut  de  ejus  filio  et  domine  Adalaie  vel  de  ejus  filium 
masculorum  jamdicte  domine  Adalagie  si  habuerit "  are  almost  certainly  a  corruption 
of  some  form  like  that  in  the  contemporaneous  civ.  (above,  n.  2),  "in  potestate... 
Berte  comitisse  aut  de  ejus  filie  nomine  Adaleige,  vel  de  ejus  filium  masculinum 
jamdicte  domine  Adaleige  si  abuerit."  Unluckily  the  two  charters  have  not  yet  been 
revised  from  the  documents.     The  original  of  civ.  exists ;  only  a  copy  of  cm. 


1 88  The  later  Ardoinids 

to  be  separated  from  subsequent  history.  Bertha,  whose  importance 
for  the  time  was  much  less  than  that  of  her  sisters,  married  Teto,  an 
Aleramid  Marquess,  ancestor  of  the  House  of  Vasto'.  Of  her  we 
know  five  sons,  the  eldest  of  whom,  Manfred,  bore  his  grandfather's 
name,  while  a  younger  one,  Boniface,  was  to  found  the  marquessate  of 
Saluzzo  on  the  wrecks  of  the  mark  of  Turin.  Teto  was  dead  by  1064, 
and  this  is  all  we  know  of  him.  From  the  two  documents  preserved 
concerning  her  we  may  suspect  that  Bertha's  inheritance  lay  largely,  if 
not  wholly,  between  the  lower  Belbo  and  Tanaro^  As  we  shall  see, 
there  is  some  ground  to  think  that  a  kind  of  primogeniture  was  en- 
forced by  Ulric- Manfred  and  the  Emperor  in  order  to  maintain  the 
mark. 

The  history  of  Ulric-Manfred's  rule,  as  it  has  appeared  in  this 
section,  shows  a  consistent  development  of  policy.  In  his  earlier  years 
his  chief  aim  is  to  increase  the  power  of  his  House  by  rapid  acquisitions 
of  territory  and  status.  He  is  jealous  of  King  Ardoin,  and  by  allying 
himself  with  the  German  Henry  acquires  control  of  the  great  diocese  of 
Asti  and  its  wealthy  city.  Then  with  Ardoin's  ruin  he  turns  against  his 
former  friends,  maintains  long  hostilities  with  the  Germanophil  bishops 
and  finally  attempts  to  introduce  a  new  dynasty  from  Aquitaine. 
Throughout  these  phases  the  desire  for  his  personal  independence  and 

^  See  Bresslau,  op.  cit.  i.  399-401.  This  is  the  tradition  preserved  in  the  fourteenth 
century,  v.  Jacobus  Aquensis,  Chron.  Ymag.  Mtindi  {M.H.P.  Script.  III.  1540)  :  "De 
filio  Alerami  Tete  dicto  descenderunt  marchiones  de  Saluciis  inter  alios.  Et  tunc 
quidam  comes  dominabatur  in  comitatu  Pedemontis  circa  partes  Taurini  et  Pinarolii. 
Et  iste  comes  moritur  sine  filio  masculo,  duabus  pulcris  filiabus  relictis.  Quarum  una 
data  est  comiti  Sabaudie  et  pars  comitatus  cum  ea,  et  altera  marchioni  Saluciarum 
cum  alia  parte  comitatus  et  cum  parte  ville  Bargiarum."  M.  Renaux  {Le  Alarquis 
Odon  I^  de  Savoie,  pp.  743-5)  argues  that  Bertha  cannot  be  a  daughter  of  Ulric- 
Manfred,  (i)  because  she  never  appears  with  Adelaide  and  Immilla ;  (ii)  because  her 
lands  lay  not  in  the  county  of  Alba,  but  in  that  of  Loreto ;  (iii)  because  Adelaide  and 
Immilla  only  deal  with  halves,  not  thirds,  of  their  possessions;  (iv)  because  Bertha's 
son  Boniface  of  Vasto  married  an  Ardoinid  Adelaide.  The  answers  to  which 
arguments  are  :  (i)  Immilla,  too,  only  appears  when  she  returned  to  central  Piedmont 
in  1074.  (ii)  Bertha's  lands  are  part  of  the  Ardoinid  R.  Belbo  group  (see  below,  n.  2). 
The  "rural"  county  of  Loreto  does  not  seem  to  exist  c.  1060.  It  had  not  been 
split  from  Alba  then,  (iii)  See  above,  pp.  15 1-5.  Immilla's  documents  (see  below, 
p.  232,  n.  4)  do  not  seem  to  mention  her  having  half  of  any  curtis.  (iv)  The 
Ardoinid  descent  of  Boniface's  wife  is  conjectural.  Dispensations  were  always 
possible,  and  it  seems  that  Boniface's  marriage  (which  was  thought  incestuous  for 
another  reason — his  wife  had  been  betrothed  to  his  elder  brother)  was  never  recognized 
(see  below,  p.  210,  and  Savio  there  cited). 

^  At  any  rate  Calosso,  Castagnole,  Loreto  and  Montaldo  are  found  all  together 
there.  The  documents  are  Car.  Reg.  CLXiv.  [Car.  Sup.  xvii.]  (Desimoni,  Atti  della 
Societa  Ligure  di  storia  pairia,  XXV ill.  pp.  275  and  280)  and  Car.  Reg.  CLXV.  (id. 
p.  275).  They  are  dated  30  September  1064  and  12  May  1065.  Teto  was  already 
dead. 


Ulric-Manfred's  policy  and  character  189 

that  for  the  extension  of  his  mark  seem  the  predominant  motives,  and 
deeply  rooted  ones  they  were  among  the  great  nobles  of  North  Italy. 
National  feeling,  it  will  be  noticed,  is  hardly  yet  to  be  found  in  this 
class.  Then  on  the  failure  of  his  schemes  and  the  unquestioned  suc- 
cess of  the  Emperor  Conrad,  he  appears  to  have  reconciled  himself  to 
the  new  state  of  affairs.  Now  he  is  content  to  be  the  loyal  supporter  of 
the  Emperor,  and  makes  his  primary  object  the  internal  development 
of  his  mark.  Its  growing  prosperity  is  to  be  seen  in  the  insubordina- 
tion of  the  citizens  of  Turin,  and  its  awakening  from  the  Dark  Ages  in 
the  re-birth  of  heresy. 

Ulric-Manfred's  character  is  but  little  known  to  us.  Prudence  and 
good  faith  and  religious  feeling  are  however  mentioned  by  his  con- 
temporaries^ and  his  dealings  with  Bishop  Leo  of  Vercelli  and  Duke 
William  of  Aquitaine  show  the  diplomat.  St  Peter  Damian  praises  his 
charity  to  the  poor ;  and  that  of  his  wife  to  the  hermits,  who  then,  the 
most  exalted  upholders  of  asceticism,  were  dotted  about  the  waste 
places  of  Piedmont.  Six  or  seven  monasteries,  says  the  saint,  owed 
their  foundations  to  him,  but  his  wealth  was  not  diminished,  for  his 
grandsons  ruled  much  of  Burgundy  as  well  as  Italy-.  In  short  he 
appears  as  a  good  specimen  of  the  greater  feudalists^  who  were  effecting 
the  revival  from  past  anarchy. 


Section  IV.    The  marriages  of  Countess  Adelaide. 

Before  we  can  enter  on  the  history  of  Adelaide's  rule,  we  find  our- 
selves face  to  face  with  a  problem  similar  to  that  of  the  two  Humberts. 
Are  we  dealing  with  one  or  two  Adelaides  ?  Are  the  three  husbands  we 
know  of  husbands  of  the  same  Adelaide,  or  are  they  to  be  apportioned 
as  well  as  may  be  between  two  ladies  of  that  name  ?  That  there  was 
only  one  Adelaide,  who  married  three  times  (i)  Herman,  Duke  of 
Swabia,  (ii)  Henry,  Marquess  of  Montferrat  and  (iii)  Oddo  I  Count  of 

^  See  above,  p.  175,  n.  i,  p.  187,  n.  i. 

*  St  Peter  Damian,  Opera  Omnia,  Paris  1663,  Vol.  III.  p.  90,  Opusculum  IX. 
Cap.  v.  Ulric-Manfred  used  to  feast  the  poor  on  Easter-day,  himself  waiting  at  table 
and  dining  on  the  broken  meats.  Bertha  always  gave  twice  as  much  as  what  the 
hermits  asked.  Their  evident  number  shows  the  waste  state  of  Piedmont.  Only  two 
of  the  monasteries  claimed  for  Ulric-Manfred  appear  with  certainty.  The  saint 
continues:  *' Numquid  propterea  sibi  progenies  egena  succedit?  Absit !  Videmus 
enim  nepotes  ejus,  mirandae  scilicet  indolis  pueros  maximam  partem  etiam  regni 
Burgundiae  possidere  quorum  insuper  soror  imperatori  nostro  sponsiali  cognoscitur 
jure  dotata." 

^  His  wealth  is  insisted  on  by  Radulph.  Glaber  (iv.  3,  Bouquet,  X.  46) :  "  Mainfredus 
marchionum  ditissimus."  To  Arnulf  of  Milan  (M.G.H.  Script,  viii.  11)  he  is 
"  marchionis  eximii." 


igo  The  marriages  of  Countess  Adelaide 

Savoy,  was  the  opinion  of  Terraneo  which  was  accepted  by  all  succeed- 
ing historians  down  to  Baron  Carutti.  In  1 88 1-2,  however,  Signor 
Luigi  Provana  di  Collegno^  maintained  that  two  Adelaides  had  been 
confused  together.  He  was  supported  by  Count  di  Gerbaix-Sonnaz 
and  Signor  Labruzzi^,  and  recently  (1909)  with  some  modifications  by 
M.  C.  Renaux^.  Latterly  in  1899  a  new  and  remarkably  ingenious 
theory  of  the  double  Adelaide  was  started  by  Professor  Gabotto^ 
Replies  to  Provana  and  Labruzzi  have  been  made  by  Baron  Carutti^ 
and  Count  CipoUa®.  Thus  the  question  has  been  well  discussed  and 
some  arguments  on  either  side  have  been  put  out  of  action. 

For  the  discussion  of  the  rival  opinions,  I  propose  to  follow  the 
method  already  adopted  with  regard  to  Humbert  Whitehands,  i.e.  (i)  to 
tabulate  the  existing  data  with  regard  to  the  Adelaides,  wives  of  Herman, 
Henry  and  Oddo,  as  well  as  to  the  Adelaide  who  may  yet  be  unmarried 
of  1034 ;  (ii)  to  discuss  the  charter  of  Frossasco  of  1034  (Car.  /^eg.  dlv.), 
and  (iii)  to  consider  (a)  the  views  of  Signori  Provana  and  Labruzzi, 
(/>)  those  of  M.  Renaux,  and  (c)  those  of  Professor  Gabotto.  Then, 
having  come  to  a  conclusion  on  the  matters  in  dispute  and,  I  hope, 
having  shown  that  the  probabilities  are  considerably  in  favour  of  the 
single  Adelaide,  I  shall  be  able  in  the  next  section  to  continue  the 
history  of  the  Mark  of  Turin  and  the  House  of  Savoy  till  c.  1060. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  second  document  in  the  series,  Car.  J?eg.  dlv., 
the  charter  re  Frossasco,  is  all-important ;  since  if  it  is  genuine  it  settles 
the  question.  If  Adelaide  had  married  Oddo  I  in  1034  and  was  still 
his  wife  in  1057  (Car.  Aeg.  CLi.,  below,  p.  195)  she  cannot  be  the  same 
person  as  the  x\delaide  who  married  Herman  by  1036  (Car.  J^eg.  cii., 
below,  p.  191)  and  Henry  by  1042  (Car.  J?eg.  cxxiv.,  below,  p.  193). 
That  it  is  genuine  has  been  maintained  by  Signori  Provana  and  Labruzzi, 
and  M.  Renaux,  and  denied  by  Baron  Carutti,  Count  CipoUa  and  Pro- 
fessor Gabotto.  It  has  usually  been  discussed  in  connection  with  the 
other  arguments  on  the  general  question  of  Adelaide's  marriages,  but 
perhaps  it  is  best  to  take  it  by  itself  first  with  as  little  reference  to  that 
as  possible,  premissing  that  it  is  only  known   by  a  transcript  made 

1  Z>ei  7natrinionii  di  Adelaide  contessa  (Curiosita  e  Ricerche  di  Storia  Subalpina, 
pubblicata  da  una  Societa  di  studiosi  di  patrie  memorie,  Turin  1881-2,  Puntate  xvii. 
and  XVI 1 1.). 

2  La  7tionarchia  di  Savoia  fiiio  alF  anno  1103,  App.  p.  285. 

^  Le  Marquis  Odon  I  de  Savoie,  fils  d^ Humbert  I^  (Memoires  de  1' Academic  de 
Savoie,  Ser.  iv.  Vol.  xi.  1909),  on  which  cf.  review  by  Sig.  L.  Usseglio  in  Rivista 
star.  ital.  1909,  pp.  407-10. 

*  V Abazia  ed  il  comune  di  Pinerolo  ecc,  B.S.S.S.  I.  pp.  89-100. 

^  II  conte  Umbe7-to  I  ecc.  App.  11.  pp.  305-40. 

^  Le  pill  antiche  carte  di  S.  Giusto  di  Susa,  Bull.  Istit.  stor.  ital.  18,  pp.  24-31 
(i.e.  p.  24,  n.  4). 


Register  of  Adelaide's  documents  191 


•p  - 


V    to       ■  OJ 

Q    3    «    s 

rt  -^   r*. 

o^S^ 

^-gs^ 

-.  =*  8  0 

ilol 

^S^o 

>c-1| 

a?*"!- 

'>^ 

rt    *-•    " 

Ui 

cS 

O-S    1^    > 

u 

0 
0 

os^-c;^ 

rt 

.^        C    rt 

— ^    ^  cj  cn 

0 

„    .^     - 

fc. 

0    3 

"  g  S  rt 

ID  — 1 

ti  '^ 

2  0 
^1 

tl>  .^ 

^;^gl 

0  5  ^ 

•r*    0 

-<    V,  -^ 

Ww 

!X^  o  J2  S;  o!  C?0  i-'  c 
o  g-g«^o  o-  a  o 


5    O   fl  00 

5  '■?  S  " 


SS-?;--^.£Q.  =  -?:a.;^ 


N     (/J 

-  ^    ^    0, 


3  -C  C/5 
^    ^^    r^    r> 


cj   1)  X 


-TJ      O 


M 


c«c«0<^     CO       rt-^--Sw« 


S  <u 


<2  — 


•j:.s:s 


00 


<j  •-I 


rt  1)  '.H  s;    :  rt  £  u       •>>  ■"  'S  —  H7 '--  ^        c3  > 


^        .^    CL 


1;  c 

.c.S 


•-      -c 


10  tn 


^     00  00 


s^i^.-^ 


^g  s::^     :  .::  2 
S=^  ^  „  :??  s  -  " 


.« 


w  3  t  c      o    - 

^-^     Q     (3'-' 

S  S.S 


192  The  marriages  of  Countess  Adelaide 

U02S 
a.  <u  ..-^  p 

TJ  <J    ^    ^    O 

g  -^  £^v^  Sf 

12  o    •  fe       i) 

3  D-  li     *     >^^ 

'^  -i  -S  t;  Ji  '„- 

•g  M    tn    «J    s    S  •<-'  X^        Co'" 

h;  --^r)^  <:  -S  <3  •?  c  <u  -^  .5  -r  o 


s-s^l,^!  S| 


—    w    jj    «    o 


^>    £    !"    ^    =U 


'^  oW-^  s  2 
-if-::  r^S^S-o 

On  O    ?i    >-    '^    O  o 


leFllisNPlOog    11^^=1  si 

5  liifi-gji^sr.iisia  ^^t.:iig 

0  ^  c  -^  ..  c/5  =  =:  -^  ,« •-  ^       ^       o  d  a  ^        ^  2.      ^-  -2  ^  S  .2 

1  S0  2gS||ggS>|||.||S.,-     ^<2|^|-|.s 

I  ^*iriii"ii-ils=i.-|i    i|jo5i;i 

5li^' §1  if  la  il^l i.i'^l  -  •■ "  I  ill  s 


Register  of  Adelaide's  documents  193 


=1:2; 


U 


>.^  ^ 

^  00    G     . 

ro  nj  ^ 

-a  0  p  0 

(U   «   r   r» 

ttest 

uly 

He 

'.  P- 

rt  ' — >  C    s 

,lso 

,  28 

whe 
belo 

is   a 
date, 
.038 

Cf. 

6 

*o 

^^  <u     . 

u  ^    ^    -^ 

•~   rt  —    u 

^ 

-t,^S 

^ 

date 
s  Ion 
date 
is  to 

^^ 

^'^ 

"S^' 
rt^ 

,   but  t 
lerman 
0,  but  t 
insent  o 

0. 

a. 

»,   hM      M-    0 

^ 

=<  ^  ^  i3  S  ^^  •=  *       S    .  c^  - 


"cjS^^-g6. 


S^:§ 


s    _ 


«   .  .       -  .  ^-^  r;:^  ^°  J 

P.  O.  13 


194  The  marriages  of  Countess  Adelaide 


O  ^ 


ZiHr 


id  '-0 


j3    O  ^ 


43  —  ^  = 


c  -•'^ 


■|oa  =  5 


.rt    C  ^ 


■  c;  S^.c  o  c  ">  ?':"f' 

H  ^  5      ^"^  3 


O 


O    !>  <*. 


S  11  1) 


,^-3    U    ^  D    «    V 


S    O    J 


5^52  « 


^u-,—   v'^".   5"^'^   =  '-^   - 

:-j  n  >  o  ^o3--"  rtCr-  -...  "^.y  2 


.=  5  rt  '>"  X  ^  Ji  £  o  -3; 


S;   rt   c 


:=^<2 


<  g  ^  <  ^  rt  <  -S)  ^  2 1  ^  •>  a 


kJ-5 


-   C3 


^^  > 

r^    'i    "-*    ^ 

to  "■?  '^  ■=* 

^•^^  s 


■i!     " 


I-.     J.     l; 


^. 


5  ^  ;i      °° 
-  ci  ■»    5  ^' 


Register  of  Adelaide's  documents  195 


■^ "?  "B  ^^  «  o  S  2 
V  c  ^  ■~i  ii;  N  1^ 


•c 


pq 


13—2 


196  The  marriages  of  Countess  Adelaide 


>. 


o  .s  ■ 


.  ■    lU 


.s-g 


■|^|it|l|lii|^1it|  .%!ti^-i^^i.li  II 

rt-^-c  2  2  J3  =  Scj  s^>r  S-^  rtH-£  rt  -^3  ii  3  H  ";  .E  Qi  rt  .S  >^  vF      =  -3 


»  e 


Co 

-*■ 

«o 

=q 

^" 

^ 

2 

M 

^ 

^ 

.^ 

SJ 

\ 

^ 

<3 

« 

^ 

Gft? 

Register  of  Adelaide's  documents 


197 


O    tn        •  — 


51=1,  >.2^ 

*^    3  '-^  ^     I'm 


M  a-: 


^"5.2 

isede 
husb 
Hum 

--^  s 

!3    0   m 

''si- 

>  0  t/) 

Mar 
gift 
■  son 

xu-^ 

0    ui    ii 

8.-'s 

tsx 

^■2  " 

^-"i. 

^«£ 

^  0  5 

'S  0  c 

1^    P  J2 

■T-!     0     « 

u.«- 

<^£ 

I-    t/1 


p. 


c  S  •■§■■"  ^ 

S   C>   !^    M  —  t^ 
3    O    C    g  SC 

^  s    c  -^    3   i-Z 

fO  c3    C  o   »- 

— •         4-1    (J   " 

d.     c  5  t«  > 
£■"■£  >sx: 

^  cj    O        "u)  >^ 
5,    C    01    c/5    3 

o  ^S.^.2  ij 

"    O    _,    3  '>    rt 

">  £  3  y  " 


t-    (U    o 


O    IJ 


oS"^  g  "  5 

.  g    3    O  ^ 

R^rt  «f  5.S/5 


3  •- 


Q    b    3 


I  ^  ,0  '^  T3    S 

JO  PQ  i  .-2   o  "^ 
■kQ  ^o  a^ 

•s  -IS  ..•«::) 

1  --•    O)    ■ 


a--= 


.  •?  «-  <«  SS  i  S  "H 

\    C    u,    i-    rt^    at    ir.    C 


^    c5 

C 
00    3 

■^^  o 


a      r2  PQ  4_, 

^  ji^    rt    j^  ^    ^ 


c  I:;^ 


"^  II- 


;  ._r  3 


OS 


^5 


IS  a' 

"1  M  "?• 


■2i  =<  ::; 

^  %  X 

X 
o 

^  l-S  3    . 

t;  to  O  o  ^^ 
"      "^    .  '^ 


3    '^ 

o  ■" 


t/) 


W   ■ 


—    v>    n!  ^^ 


iVS  b 


•    ^w    *-«  .^    ^IJ    TO     ■-)  L>i     -sj 


o  j3  so  C     -  <« 
■*-  "  _       '-'  'c  S! 

«  o  ;-5  oT  j>  2  a) 

"w'^^-S  £  3 

-'    ^    Cm     2"     ri 


^    CX 


.S       d 
c       c 


•S  4= 


0\  13  J-; 
C     _•" 

■>.2  c 
_  ™  o 

£-2  « 


c/)H 


198  The  marriages  of  Countess  Adelaide 


V  ^    •>•      .  —  .'3        ■ — -  S    in        ■-    >  -^ 

'^    3  :§  ^*^^    ^  ,.  "^        H    <"    2  ~  'g    S  ~ 

"S         r^  ^  ~  ^  ^      H  y  S      -r  n  "> 


£3 
O 


The  charter  of  Frossasco  199 

2nd  January  1235  by  notary  Giacomo  for  confirmation  by  Thomas  of 
Savoy  and  his  brother  Count  Amadeus  IV^ 

^  The  arguments  below  are  derived  from  the  cited  authors.  I  subjoin  the  text 
of  the  Charter  of  Frossasco  (Car.  Reg.  DLV.),  as  given  by  Count  Cipolla,  op.  cit.,  with 
parts  of  Car.  Heg.  Lxxvi.,  xciv.  and  ccxciv.  for  comparison  : 

"In  nomine  Domini  amen.  Monasterio  Sancte  Trinitatis  et  sanctorum  Justi  et 
Mauri  sito  infra  civitatem  Secusinam,  in  quo  monachi  die  noctuque  Deo  deserviunt, 
nos  Odo  marchio  et  Adalegia  comitissa  ejus  conjux  necnon  et  Humbertus  comes,  qui 
professi  sumus  omnes  lege  vivere  salicha,  offertores  et  donatores  ipsius  monasterii 
presentes  presentibus  diximus :  quisquis  ad  Dominum  vel  in  Sanctis  locis  ex  suis 
aliquid  contulerit  rebus,  juxta  Auctoris  vocem,  in  hoc  seculo  centuplum  accipiet ; 
insuper,  quod  melius  est,  vitam  eternam  possidebit.  Ideoque  nos  supradicti  Odo 
et  Adalegia  et  Humbertus  donamus  et  offerimus  et  concedimus  a  presenti  die  et  hora 
in  eodem  monasterio  pro  mercede  animarum  nostrarum  et  in  remedium  earumdem 
animarum,  et  animarum  aviorum  aviarumque,  fratrum  et  sororum,  patruorum  et 
avunculorumque  sive  pro  ceteris  propinquorum  nostrorum  atque  pro  omnibus  fidelibus 
defunctis,  quartam  partem  de  Ferru9asco  et  de  ejus  territorio,  cum  suis  pertinentiis, 
juribus  et  rationibus  universis,  et  cum  omni  dominio,  in  ejusdem  quarta  parte,  cum 
terris  arabilibus,  pratis,  gerbis,  pascuis,  silvis  majoribus  ac  minoribus,  cum  areis 
suarum  et  cum  molendinis,  venationibus,  piscationibus,  alpibus,  ripis,  rivagiis  et 
paludibus,  terris  cultis  et  incultis,  divisis  et  indivisis,  una  cum  accessionibus,  seu 
finibus,  terminis  et  usibus  aquarum,  aquarumque  decursibus,  feudis,  feudatariis, 
vasallis,  stratis  publicis  et  privatis,  atque  cum  omnibus  dominiis,  juribus,  imperiis 
universis  et  generaliter  cum  omnibus  aliis  ad  jus  et  proprietatem  nostram  in  ipsa  quarta 
parte  pertinentibus,  tam  in  montibus  quam  in  planiciebus.  Atque  eciam  donamus 
eidem  venerabili  monasterio  massum  unum  in  predicto  territorio,  qui  massus  Vigerus 
dicitur,  cum  molendino  et  batorio,  cum  suis  omnibus  pertinentiis,  terris  cultis  et 
incultis,  vineis,  pratis,  gerpis,  et  cum  omnibus  suis  juribus  et  rationibus  et  cum  omni 
pleno  dominio  et  jurisdictione.  Necnon  etiam  donamus  et  concedimus  eidem 
monasterio  terciam  partem  decime  tocius  territorii  predict!  et  pertinentiarum  suarum, 
ita  ut  faciant  monachi  dicti  monasterii  ad  eorum  usum  et  sumptum,  seu  ad  proprietatem 
ejusdem  monasterii  quidquid  voluerint  de  ipsis  rebus  donatis,  sine  omni  nostra  et 
heredum  ac  proheredumque  nostrorum  contraditione  vel  repetitione.  Insuper  per 
cutellum  atque  ramum  arboris  a  parte  ipsius  monasterii  Dominico  abbati  ipsius 
monasterii  exinde  legitimam  facimus  traditionem  et  investituram.  Et  nos  exinde  foris 
expulimus,  gerpivimus  et  absentes  fecimus,  ad  proprietatem  ejusdem  monasterii 
habendum  relinquimus.  Has  autem  donationes  volumus  in  integrum  per  nos  et 
successores  et  heredes  nostros  defensatas  esse  ab  omni  homine  et  eas  perpetuo 
valituras  et  inviolabiliter  observari.  Si  quis  vero,  quod  futurum  esse  non  credimus,  si 
nos,  quod  absit,  aut  ullus  de  heredibus,  aut  proheredibus  nostris,  seu  quelibet  opposita 
persona,  contra  has  donationes  nostras  ire  quandocumque  temptaverimus,  aut  illas  per 
quo[d]vis  ingenium  infringere  quesiverimus,  tunc  inferamus  ad  illam  partem  contra 
quam  exinde  litem  intulerimus,  pro  pena  auri  obtimi  untias  centum,  argenti  pondera 
ducenta.  Insuper,  res  ipsas  in  dupplum  parti  ejusdem  monasterii,  sicut  pro  tempore 
fuerint  meliorate,  aut  valuerint,  sub  extimacione  in  consimilibus  locis,  et  quod 
repecierimus  vendicare  non  valeamus.  Actum  in  civitate  Thaurina,  in  castro  quod  est 
desuper  portam  Secusinam. 

Testes  interfuerunt  :  Johannes  de  Thaurino  et  Oldericus  de  Ast,  lege  romana 
viventes,  Athemulphus  de  Querio  et  Albertus  de  Sancto  Georgio. 

Hanc  vero  cartam  Boren^o  notario  sacri  palacii  tradidimus  ad  scribendum  et 
id  fieri  rogavimus.     Qui  ego  Boren90  notarius  et  judex  sacri  palacii,  scriptor,   hoc 


200  The  marriages  of  Countess  Adelaide 

testamentum  post  traditum  complevi  et  dedi.  Anno  dominice  incamationis,  Mxxxv., 
indictione  tercia,  llli.  Kalendas  Januarii,  anno  autem  domini  Conradi  regis  im- 
perii  XI." 

I.xxvi.  "  Si  quis  vero,  quod  futurum  esse  non  credimus,  si  nos,  quod  absit,  aut 
ullus  de  heredibus  hac  proheredibus  nostris  seu  quislibet  opposita  persona  contra  hoc 
testamentum  ire  quandoque  tentaverimus,  aut  illud  per  quodcumque  ingenium  in- 
fringere  quesierimus,  tunc  inferamus  ad  illam  partem  contra  quem  exinde  litem 
intullerimus  multa,  que  est  pena  auro  obtimo  uncias  centum,  argenti  ponderas  ducenti, 
insuper  res  ipsas  in  duplum  parti  ejusdem  monasterii,  sicut  pro  tempore  fuerint 
meliorate,  aut  valuerint,  sub  exstimatione  in  consimilibus  locis,  et  quod  repecierimus 
vendicare  non  valeamus,  sed  presens  hoc  testamentum  diuturnis  temporibus  firmum 
stabilitumque  permaneat,  atque  persistat  inconvulsum,  cum  stipulacione  subnixa...et 
bergamena  cum  tramentario  de  terra  elevavimus,  Herenzoni  notario  et  judici  sacri 
palacii  ad  scribendum  tradidimus,  et  id  fieri  rogavimus  in  qua  subter  confirmantes 
testibus  obtulimus  roborandum...Anno  imperii  domni  Chunradi,  Deo  propicio, 
tercio,  nono  die  mensis  Julii,  indictione  duodecima.  Actum  Taurinensem  civitatem, 
feliciter. 

Alricus  gratia  Dei  episcopus...subscripsit. 

Hoc  est  signum  domni  Maginfredi  marhionis,  etc. 

Signum  manu  jamdicte  Berte  comitisse,  etc. 

Signum  manibus  Johanni  et  Odelrici,  ambo  lege  viventes  romana,  testes. 

Signum  manibus  Vuitberti  comiti,  et  Liudoni,  lege  viventes  salicha,  testes. 

Signum  manibus  Belezoni,  et  Alberti,  seu  Atoni  testes. 

(S.T.)  Ego  qui  supra  Herenzo  notarius  et  judex  sacri  palacii,  scriptor,  hoc 
testamentum  post  traditum  complevi  et  dedi." 

xciv.  (S.T.)  "  In  nomine  domini  Dei  et  salvatoris  nostri  Jesu  Christ!.  Chunradus 
[gratia  Dei]  imperator  Augustus,  anno  imperii  ejus,  Deo  propicio,  sesto,  septimo  die 

mensis  Marcii,  indicione  prima Si  quis  vero,  quod  futurum  esse  non  credimus,  si 

nos  corum  supra  offertores,  quod  absit,  aut  ullus  de  heredibus  hac  proheredibus  nostris, 
seu  quisl[ibet  opposijta  persona  contra  banc  cartulam  offersionis  ire  quandoque 
temptaverimus,  aut  eam  per  quovis  ingenium  infrangere  quesierimus,  tunc  inferamus  ad 
illam  partem  contra  quam  exinde  litem  intulerimus  multa  quod  est  pena  auro  optimo 
uncias  c,  argenti  ponderas  ducenti,  et  quod  repecierimus,  vendicare  non  valeamus,  sed 
presens  banc  cartulam  offersionis  temporibus*  firma  permaneat  atque  persistat  in- 
convulsa,  cum  stipulatione  subnixa.  Et  ad  nos  corum  supra  offertores  nostrisque 
heredibus  atque  proheredibus  a  parte  ipsius  monasterii,  aut  cui  pars  ipsius  monasterii 
dederit,  suprascripta  offersio  qualiter  supra  legitur  in  integrum  ab  omni  homine 
sit  defensata,  quod  si  defendere  non  potuerimus,  aut  si  parti  ejusdem  monasterii  exinde 
aliquid  per  covis  ingenium  subtrahere  quesierimus,  tunc  in  duplum  eadem  offersio  parti 
ipsius  monasterii,  aut  cui  pars  ipsius  monasterii  dederit  restituamus,  sicut  pro  tempore 
fuerit  meliorata,  aut  valuerit  sub  estimacione  in  consimiles  locas,  et  bergamena  cum 
hactramentario  de  terra  elevavimus.  Hanc  enim  caitule  offersionis  paginam  Gisleberti 
notarii  sacri  palacii  tradavimus  ad  scribendum,  et  ei  fieri  rogavimus,  in  qua  subter 
confirmantes  testibusque  roborantes  obtulimus.  Actum  infra  civitate  Taurino,  intus 
castro  que  est  desuper  porta  Seusina  posito,  feliciter." 

[There  follow  the  signa  of  grantors  and  witnesses  and  then  :] 

(S.T.)  "Ego  qui  supra  Gislebertus  notarius  sacri  palacii,  scriptor  hujus  cartule 
offersionis,  post  tradita  complevi  et  dedi." 

ccxciv.  "Si  quis  vero,  quod  futurum  esse  non  credimus,  si  nos,  quod  absit,  aut 
ullus  de  heredibus  aut  proheredibus  nostris,  seu  quelibet  opposita  persona  contra  hoc 

*  "  diuturnis  "  omitted  by  the  scribe. 


The  charter  of  Frossasco  201 

Briefly,  the  internal  evidence  for  the  non-genuineness  of  the  charter 
is  as  follows,  (i)  The  dating  "  1035,  Ind.  in.,  iiii.  Kal.  Jan.  anno  autem 
domini  Conradi  regis  imperii  xi.  "  is  absurdly  wrong.  In  December 
1034  (for  the  year  is  begun  from  Christmas)  Conrad's  eleventh  royal 
German  year  and  eighth  imperial  year  were  running ;  and  the  use  of  the 
style  of  rex,  instead  of  imperator,  is  most  unlikely,  (ii)  The  document 
contains  certain  phrases,  which  are  not  used  before  the  second  half  of 
the  twelfth  century.  Such  are  feudis,  feudatariis,  vasallis,  and  imperils 
universis  ;  while  "  pleno  dominio  et  jurisdidione  "  one  does  not  expect  in 
a  donation  of  land  to  a  monastery  in  Piedmont  in  1034.  (iii)  Though 
the  minatio  is  modelled  on  Car.  Reg.  Lxxvi.  (1029,  the  foundation  act 
of  S.  Giusto)  very  closely,  it  differs  from  it,  exactly  in  small  phrases, 
where  Car.  Reg.  ccxciv.  (1147,  above,  p.  197)  also  does,  and  therefore 
should  be  connected  with  the  latter,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Car.  Reg. 
xciv.  (which  is  the  second  donation  to  S.  Giusto,  above,  p.  184)  keeps 
the  form  of  lxxvi.  in  these  phrases  \  dlv.,  too,  breaks  off  before  the 
close,  while  ccxciv.  continues.  Thus  ccxciv.  is  not  modelled  on  dlv., 
but  the  reverse  is  the  case,  dlv.  being  modelled  on  ccxciv.  (iv)  The 
eschatol  is  impossible  for  the  eleventh  century,  lacking,  as  it  does,  the 
subscription  of  the  donors,  and  giving  a  list  of  witnesses  "  testes  inter- 
fuerunt,"  which  too  is  put  before  the  donors'  direction  to  the  notary, 
^v)  The  gift  is  made  by  Oddo,  Adelaide  and  Humbert,  and  consists  of 
one  quarter  of  Frossasco,  the  mansus  called  Vigerus  there,  and  one-third 
of  the  tithe.  Now  Conrad  II's  diploma  of  confirmation  to  S.  Giusto, 
29  December  1037,  makes  no  reference  to  Oddo,  Adelaide  or  Humbert, 
and  speaks  only  of  two  ma/isi,  two  chapels  with  endowment  and  one- 
third  of  tithe  and  two  mills-,     (vi)  From  its  date  and  substance  the 

lestamentum  ire  quandoque  temptaverimus,  aut  illud  per  quodcumque  ingenium 
infringere  quesierimus,  tunc  inferamus  ad  illam  partem  contra  quam  exinde  litem 
intulerimus  pro  pena  auri  obtimi  uncias  C,  argenti  pondera  cc,  insuper  res  ipsas  in 
duplum  parti  ejusdem  monasterii,  sicut  pro  tempore  fuerint  meliorate  aut  valuerint,  sub 
estimatione  in  consimilibus  locis.  Et  quod  repelierimus,  vendicare  non  valeamus,  set 
presens  hoc  testamentum  diuturnis  temporibus  firmum,  stabilitum  permaneat  atque 
persistat,....'\ctum  est  istud  Secusie,  in  monasterio  Sancti  Justi,  in  presentia  domni 
Eugenii  pape,  etc." 

*  In  one  phrase  dlv.  agrees  with  xciv.  against  Lxxvi.  and  ccxciv.,  viz.  qu(n>is 
ingenium  for  quodcumque  ingenium. 

2  Car.  Rtg.  CXVL  (M.G.H.  Dipl.  iv.  349;  Cipolla,  Carte  di  .S.  Giusto,  Bull.  Lstit. 
stor.  ital.  18,  p.  84  ;  cf.  also  Carte  di  S.  Giusto,  p.  40).  Count  Cipolla  points  out  that 
the  charter  is  a  false  original  (c.  11 80),  but  except  the  donations  at  Frossasco, 
Avigliana  and  the  Vivarium  Vangerii,  the  places  seem  confirmed  by  authentic 
charters.  Perhaps  the  immunity  conferred — "  interdicimus  ut  nullus  dux  etc...,folrum 
tollere,  seu  legem  facere,  aut  placitum  tenere,  nisi  abbas  ejusdem  loci  aut  suus  missus, 
presumat " — is  the  insertion  for  the  sake  of  which  the  false  original  was  made.  This 
seems  to  have  been  Bresslau's  opinion,  Konrad  I/,  li.  277.     But  in  M.G.H.  Dipl.  iv. 


202  The  marriages  of  Countess  Adelaide 

Count  Humbert  can  only  be  Whitehands.  It  is  not  easy  to  see  why  he 
intervenes  as  a  donor,  (vii)  As  stated  in  (vi)  Count  Humbert  is  clearly 
Whitehands;  and  thus  the  charter  is  inconsistent  with  Amadeus  Hi's 
diploma  of  1147  (Car.  Reg.  ccxciv.  above,  p.  i97)S  where  the  quarter 
of  Frossasco  and  half  Chiavrie  and  Condove  are  mentioned  as  gifts 
(doubtless  in  separate  charters)  of  Amadeus  Hi's  father,  Humbert  W 
(1091-1103),  and  Oddo  (ob.  c.  1060)  and  Adelaide  (ob.  1091). 

The  result  of  these  arguments  is  that  the  Charter  of  Frossasco  is  a 
forgery  made  by  a  scribe  who  misunderstood  Amadeus  Hi's  charter  of 
1 147  and  modelled  his  work  on  Car.  Reg.  lxxvi.  (1029),  xciv.  (1033) 
and  CCXCIV.  (1147),  to  replace  two  lost  charters,  the  one  granting  the 
two  manst,  etc,  and  the  other  (probably  Humbert  II's)  granting  one 
quarter  of  Frossasco  (or  enough  to  make  a  quarter  with  the  two  7nansi, 
etc.).  In  this  way  he  framed  an  impossible  combination  of  personages 
and  dates. 

Some  of  these  arguments  have  been  met  by  Signori  Provana  and 
Labruzzi^  as  follows :  (i)  The  dating  is  correct  for  Conrad's  royal  years 
in  Germany ;  the  notary  likely  enough  misread  his  original,  (ii)  The 
incriminated  phrases  are  probably  interpolations  of  Notary  Giacomo  in 
1235.  We  have  proof  (e.g.  in  a  transcript  of  ccxciv.  (1147))  that  he 
was  an  inaccurate  copyist  and  did  actually  once  interpolate  feudis  in 
CCXCIV.  (iii)  The  minatio  of  dlv.  differs  from  that  of  lxxvi.  in  but 
small  phrases,  and  three  out  of  six  of  these  differ  from  the  phrases  in 
CCXCIV.  (which  here  agrees  with  lxxvi.)  as  well.  How  can  it  then  be 
copied  from  ccxciv.  ?  (iv)  The  eschatol  has  gone  wholly  wrong  and  is 
due  to  later  copyists,     (v)  The  two  mansi^  etc.,  of  Car.  Reg.   cxvi. 

p.  350,  he  decides  that  the  immunity-clause  appears  genuine,  and  suspects  the 
interpolation  not  only  of  Frossasco,  etc.,  but  of  Mocchie,  etc.,  on  the  ground  that 
Car.  Reg.  xciv.,  which  confirms  their  having  been  given,  is  suspect  itself,  since  it  is 
a  false  original.  With  regard  to  Frossasco,  if  it  is  an  interpolation  c.  11 80,  why 
is  the  grant  not  more  ample  in  terms  ?  Hence  I  think  the  form  must  go  back  to 
a  genuine  grant.  There  is  another  version  of  Conrad's  diploma  {M.G.H.  Dipl.  iv. 
407  ;  Cipolla,  Briciole  stor.  noval..  Bull.  Istit.  stor.  ital.  22,  p.  17)  which  Bresslau 
declares  to  be  a  forgery  of  c.  1200.  Cipolla,  however,  seems  to  date  it  c.  11 00  and  to 
think  {Briciole,  p.  34)  that  the  first  and  better  version  may  be  of  the  same  period. 

^  The  passage  in  question  runs :  "  Cognovimus  etiam  strenuissimum  et  bone 
memorie  comitem  Humbertum,  genitorem  nostrum,  necnon  et  Odonem  gloriosum 
marchionem,  et  prudentissimam  comitissam  Adaleiam,  non  solum  custodisse  et  illesa 
servasse  in  prefato  monasterio  a  constructoribus  predictis  quecumque  bona  concessa,  set 
etiam  ipsi  largissimas  helemosinas  in  sepe  dictum  monasterium  contulerunt,  viz. 
quartam  partem  de  Ferruzasco  cum  suis  pertinentiis,  et  medietatem  de  duabus  cortis, 
idest  Cavria  et  Gundovo."  With  the  founders  already  mentioned,  all  the  rulers  from 
Ulric- Manfred  till  Amadeus  Ill's  time  are  thus  named. 

^  I  do  not  distinguish  between  the  arguments  alleged  by  either,  as  none  of  their 
arguments  are  mutually  inconsistent. 


The  charter  of  Frossasco  203 

probably  formed  one  quarter  of  Frossasco.  As  to  the  non-mention  of 
Humbert,  Adelaide  and  Oddo  by  Conrad  II,  Suffred  is  equally  not 
mentioned  by  Conrad  II  for  the  half  of  Volvera  which  he  gave  (Renaux, 
op.  cit.  pp.  718-19).  (vi)  Count  Humbert  intervenes  in  an  honorary 
fashion,  as  was  sometimes  done,  e.g.,  by  Countess  Bertha  in  the  foundation 
of  S.  Giusto  (lxxvi.).  To  which  M.  C.  Renaux  adds  that  Humbert 
was  Count  of  Maurienne,  and  the  Val  di  Susa  was  in  the  diocese  of 
Maurienne  and  that  therefore  he  intervened \  (vii)  The  expressions  in 
Amadeus  Ill's  diploma  are  a  mistake  of  its  compiler^. 

One  general  criticism  on  this  answer  may  be  made  at  once.  The 
diploma  needs  a  great  deal  of  defence  and  correction.  One  or  two 
points  might  not  matter ;  but  so  many  impress  us.  In  detail  it  may  be 
argued :  (i)  The  dating  is  still  inaccurate  in  a  most  unlikely  way. 
(ii)  Giacomo  has  here  surpassed  himself,  and  in  point  of  fact  fettdis  in 
his  copy  of  ccxciv.  was  not  due  to  him  but  to  a  previous  notary,  (iii)  As 
to  the  minatio,  since  ccxciv.  and  dlv.  have  three  peculiarities  in  com- 
mon, they  should  be  connected;  but  the  truncation  of  dlv.'s  viinatio 
makes  it  an  unlikely  source  for  ccxciv.,  the  minatio  of  which  is  complete 
and  follows  lxxvi.  One  of  the  remaining  three  variants,  per  quovis 
itigeniutn  (for  per  quodcumque  inge?iiu7fi),  is  to  be  found  in  xciv. ;  but  at 
least  one  of  the  others  has  a  suspiciously  late  sound,  viz.  has  donaiiones 
nostras  instead  of  hoc  testamentiim  or  hanc  cartulam  offersionis^.  (iv)  Here 
again  Giacomo  is  inconceivably  careless,  (v)  The  two  mansi,  etc.,  are 
very  little  for  a  quarter  of  a  curtis  even  in  depopulated  Piedmont.  And 
in  precepts  of  confirmation  the  actual  words  of  the  grant  are  usually 
summarized.  Hence  one  quarter  of  Frossasco  would  certainly  be  stated 
by  Conrad,  and  the  absence  of  any  mention  of  Oddo,  Adelaide  and 
Humbert  is  conclusive.  The  non-mention  of  Suffred  by  Conrad  is  due 
to  the  fact  that  he  was  merely  Countess  Bertha's  agent,  and  a  sham 
donor^  (vi)  This  is  true,  but  rare  :  Countess  Bertha  had  dower-rights 
over  the  lands  given  to  S.  Giusto.  As  to  the  claims  of  the  Bishop  of 
Maurienne,  it  seems  that  it  was  rather  the  Abbey  of  Breme-Novalesa, 
which  had  the  chief  prior  claims  on  the  Val  di  Susal  And  why  is 
Count  Humbert  a  donor?  Why  does  he  not  simply  laudare  et  con- 
firmare}    (vii)  It  is  utterly  unlikely  that  a  scribe  of  Amadeus  III  should 

^   Renaux,  op.  cit.  pp.  706-7. 

^  M.  Renaux  asks  {op.  cit.  p.  714)  why  the  composer  of  DLV.  used  the  late  ccxciv. 
as  model  in  preference  to  the  earlier  lxxvi.  and  xciv.  The  answer  is  that  it  was 
ccxciv.  which  contained  the  reference  to  the  grant  of  Frossasco  which  he  misunder- 
stood and  which  he  replaced  by  his  forgery. 

■*  I  believe  this  point  has  not  been  made  before. 

•*  See  above,  pp.  173-4. 

'  See  above,  pp.  97  and  147  ;  and  below,  pp.  290-1. 


204  The  marriages  of  Countess  Adelaide 

make  a  mistake  about  the  latter's  father.  A  confusion  made  forty  or 
fifty  years  later  (if  not  sixty  or  seventy)  was  much  more  likely  ^ 

Thus  we  seem  confirmed  in  the  conclusion,  backed  by  the  great 
authority  of  Count  Cipolla,  that  the  Charter  of  Frossasco  contained  in 
Car.  Reg.  dlv.  is  a  forgery  of  c.  1200  and  should  be  deleted  from  our 
argument^. 

With  the  dead  branches  thus  lopped  off,  the  case  of  Signori  Provana 
and  Labruzzi  is  reduced  to  two  or  three  documentary  indications,  and 
an  argument  based  on  chronological  probabilities.  It  may  be  thus 
rehearsed:  (i)  The  Annalista  Saxo^,  speaking  c.  Easter  1036  of  the 
marriage  of  Immula  of  Turin,  says  her  sister,  Adelas  dicta,  nupserat 
Ottoni  fnarchioni  de  Italia.  Thus  he  says  that  in  1036  Adelaide  was 
already  married  to  Oddo.  (ii)  In  Suffred's  donations  of  December 
1035  (Car.  Reg.  cm.  and  civ.)^,  we  are  told  the  grant  is  pro  remediiwi 
animarnm  avus  avorumque  suprascriptorum  potitificis  ( Alrici)  et  marchioni 
(Olderici  Maginfredi)  seu  comitisse  (Bertae)  sive  Otdoni  item  marchioni. 
This  should  mean  Alric's  and  Ulric-Manfred's  grandfather,  and  the  grand- 
fathers of  Bertha  and  Marquess  Oddo,  who  thus  both  have  a  different 
grandfather  from  the  others.  Oddo  should  therefore  be  Adelaide's 
husband — -a  possible  son  of  hers  is  mentioned  in  the  deeds — and 
therefore  Oddo  of  Savoy.  The  very  fact  that  a  possible  son,  and  not 
also  a  possible  husband,  is  mentioned  shows  she  is  already  married^ 

^  This  assumes  that  Amadeus  Ill's  charter,  Car.  Reg.  ccxciv.,  has  only  suffered 
immaterial  alterations.  That  some  there  must  be  is  rendered  probable  by  Count 
Cipolla  (see  above,  p.   197,  n.  2). 

'■*  I  omit  the  argument  drawn  by  Carutti  from  the  profession  of  Salic  Law  by  all 
the  donors,  whereas  Humbert  II  professes  Roman  Law,  because  it  is  by  no  means 
clear  that  Humbert  II's  law  was  professed  ex  sua  iiatione,  or  that,  if  it  was,  ex 
sua  natione  was  in  his  time  a  certain  index  of  hereditary  law.  See  above,  p.  in. 
I  also  omit  Signer  Provana's  arguments  founded  on  a  supposed  distinction  between 
Adalasia-Adalaxia  and  Adebide-Adalagia  ;  since  Carutti  {op.  cit.  pp.  522-3)  shows 
that  they  are  all  promiscuously  used  and  indistinguishable.  In  fact  the  names  of  the 
eleventh  century  had  already  worn  down  to  Romance,  dialectic  forms  (something  like 
Aalis  or  Alasia  in  Piedmont  for  Adelaide),  and  local  notaries  were  somewhat  put  to  it 
to  restore  the  lofty-sounding  ancestral  Germanic  forms  for  charter-use.  Hence  arise 
the  variants.  I  also  omit,  in  the  subsequent  discussion,  the  argument  drawn  from  the 
existence  of  a  Marquess  Henry  in  documents  after  1046  (Gerbaix-Sonnaz,  Studi  storici, 
I.  216,  n.  I,  and  Gshono,  VAl)azia...di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  i.p.  89,  n.  i),  as  it  does  not 
seem  proved  that  there  was  not  another  Marquess  Henry,  and  at  least  one  of  the 
instances,  "  Henricus  qui  vocatur  Marchio"  (Car.  Reg.  CLXI. ,  Cartario  di  Pinerolo, 
B.S.S.S.  II.  p.  323),  is  obviously  not  a  Marquess,  but  only  surnamed  so  (see  Rondolino, 
Dei  Visconti  di  Torino,  Boll.  stor.  bibl.  subalpino,  vii.  pp.  219,  221). 

3  M.G.H.  Script.  VI.  679. 

•*  M.H.P.  Chart,  il.  123  and  121.  Unfortunately  the  text  has  not  since  been  repub- 
lished after  collation  with  the  MSS.  The  extraordinary  Latin  of  CIV,  which  is  an  original, 
is  transcribed  literatim,    cm,  which  is  a  copy  only,  I  regard  as  corrected  by  the  scribe. 

®  See  M.  C.  Renaux,  op.  cit.  pp.  690-1. 


Provana's  and   Labruzzi's  arguments  205 

(iii)  The  strangely  erroneous  Car.  Reg.  cxvii.  ^  makes  Adelaide  wife  of 
Duke  Herman  grant  Villaregia  by  Pompeiana  to  S.  Stefano  di  Genova. 
This  grant  is  confirmed  in  1 169  by  the  Aleramids  Boniface  and  William, 
who  call  the  donatrix  their  avia.  Now  their  avia  should  be  the  wife  of 
Boniface  I,  and  is  thus  a  different  person  from  Adelaide  of  Turin '^. 
(iv)  The  chronological  indications  are  three  in  number :  {a)  In  1090^ 
Adelaide,  widow  of  Manasse  of  Coligny  and  daughter  of  Amadeus  II*, 
confirms  a  grant  to  Nantua.  Her  sons  Humbert  and  Manasses  seem  to 
join  in  her  action.  Thus  she  could  not  well  have  married  after  1085. 
Now  Henry,  Adelaide's  second  husband,  if  we  take  the  single  Adelaide 
view,  is  last  heard  of  in  June  I044^  So  Amadeus  II,  being  second  son 
of  Adelaide  of  Turing  could  not  well  be  born  before  1047,  allowing  her 
to  remarry  after  a  year's  widowhood.  In  that  case  we  have  to  make 
Amadeus  II  marry  at  18  in  1065,  and  have  a  daughter  born  c.  1066 
who  marries  at  19  herself.  If  we  make  Amadeus  the  third  child,  and 
his  sister  Bertha  seems  older  than  he^,  both  he  and  his  daughter  marry 
at  18  years  of  age.  (b)  We  find  Frederick  of  Montbeliard  Marquess  in 
May  io8o^  So  he  must  marry  Peter  I's  daughter  Agnes  not  later. 
Taking  her  at  18  in  1080,  we  find  her  father  Peter  I  married  in  1061. 
If  he  was  18  then,  he  would  be  born  in  1043  !  (c)  Adelaide  and 
Oddo's  younger  daughter  Adelaide  married,  as  his  second  wife,  Rudolf 
of  Rheinfelden  ;  their  daughter  Matilda  is  said  by  Guichenon**  to  marry 
Ernest  of  Austria  in  1075.  Hence,  as  the  first  Adelaide  could  at 
earliest  be  born  in  1048,  we  find  mother  and  daughter  marrying  at  13^ 

^  See  above,  p.  193,  n.  i. 

*  Car.  Reg.  cccxxxviii.  and  above,  p.  197,  n.  3.     Thus  the  document,  or  what  is 
genuine  of  it,  could  be  dated  much  later. 

*  Car.  Reg.  ccxvii.  and  above,  p.  197. 

*  The  sketch  genealogy  of  Adelaide  of  Turin's  descendants  is  as  follows  : 

Adelaide  =  Oddo  I  of  Savoy 


I 1 1 1 1 

Agnes=PeterI        Amadeus  11  =  N.  N.        Oddo      Bertha  Adelaide 

I ■ — I  I  m.  Henry  IV    m.  Rudolf  of 

Frederick  =  Agnes  |  Emperor         Rheinfelden 

of  Montbeliard  |  t  D.  of  Swabia 

\  I  and  anti-Caesar 

Oddo  II  Humbert  II  Adelaide 

(?)  m.  Manasse 

of  Coligny 

'  Car.  Reg.  cxxix.  above,  p.  194. 

*  Car.  Reg.  ct.xxiii.,  "  Petrus  primogenitus." 

7  Cartario...d'Oidx,  B.S.S.S.  XLV.  p.  loi.      Peter  I  and  Bertha  were  given  to  the 
same  foster-mother.     Hence  it  seems  likely  they  were  the  two  eldest. 
^  Car.  Reg.  ccill.     He  had  no  claim  to  the  Mark  l)y  descent. 

*  Guichenon,  p.  1152. 


2o6  The  marriages  of  Countess  Adelaide 

years  on  an  average!     {d)  In  July  1064  Peter  I  is  acting  as  Marquess' 
and  therefore  of  age ;  thus  he  was  born  in  1046  at  the  latest. 

The  general  result  of  these  arguments  would  be  that  there  must  be 
two  Adelaides,  one,  the  great  Turinese  heiress,  the  wife  of  Oddo  I  in 
December  1035  ;  the  other,  wife  of  Duke  Herman  and  Marquess  Henry 
successively.  In  continuing  the  discussion,  it  will  be  best  to  give  the 
replies  to  each  in  the  same  order  and  then  add  such  countervailing 
reasons  as  have  been  proposed,  (i)  The  Annalista  Saxo,  though  an 
excellent  genealogical  authority,  wrote  a  century  later.  Therefore  his 
incidental  reference  to  Adelaide  being  married  to  Oddo  of  Savoy  by 
1036  cannot  be  strong  evidence  for  the  date  of  that  marriage,  (ii)  Here 
it  is  argued  that  you  cannot  separate  the  avus  from  the  avoT-um  :  it  is  a 
general  term.  Besides  Oddo  may  be  Ulric-Manfred's  uncle,  not  his 
brother,  and  so  have  a  separate  grandfather.  If  Oddo  of  Savoy, 
Adelaide's  husband,  were  meant,  he  would  surely  be  called  so  in  the 
deeds.  This  reply  does  not  seem  strong.  But  the  text  is  strange.  Why 
are  the  parents  left  out  ?  As  to  the  non-mention  of  the  possibiHty  of 
Adelaide's  marrying  adduced  by  M.  Renaux,  one  need  only  point  to 
the  similar  entails  of  Caramagna  and  S.  Giusto  on  p.  154  above, 
(iii)  Here  it  is  urged  that  the  document,  Car.  Reg.  cxvii.,  is  obviously 
genuine.  Nobody  would  long  remember  Duke  Herman's  evanescent 
position.  The  date  may  be  1040  by  leaving  out  one  word  7iono. 
Conjux  does  not  absolutely  mean  the  husband  was  alive ^  and  then 
the  Indiction  would  be  right.  As  to  avia  it  can  mean  ancestress  in 
general'',  which  Adelaide  of  Turin  was,  being  great-great-aunt  of  Boni- 
face and  William.  It  is  also  said  that  the  true  reading  is  proavia,  which 
undoubtedly  has  that  signification  ^  (iv)  The  chronological  questions 
are  more  difficult,  {a)  Nineteen  and  eighteen  are  not  such  unlikely 
ages  after  all  for  medieval  marriage.  Henry  IV  married  Bertha, 
Amadeus  II's  sister,  when  he  was  only  sixteen'.  And  we  may  make 
Amadeus  nineteen  and  his  daughter  eighteen.  {b)  We  can  make 
Peter  IPs  daughter  Agnes  marry  young  owing  to  the  need  there  was 
of  finding  an  adult  Marquess  at  Amadeus  IPs  death.  Thus,  if  she 
were  fifteen  in  1080,  Peter  I  need  not  marry  till  1064,  when  he  would 
be  eighteen,  having  been  born  in  1046.  (<:)  As  for  Matilda's  marriage 
to  Ernest  of  Austria,   I   find  that  Adelaide,    Rudolf  and   Adelaide's 

^  Car.  Reg.  CLX.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  22).     But  he  would  be  a  major  at  15. 

^  Besides  Herman's  consent  is  not  given ;  nor  is  his  law  mentioned ;  both  of 
which  would  probably  be  the  case  if  he  was  living.     But  of.  above,  p.  193,  n.  i. 

^  See  Riddle,  Scheller's  Lexicon,  Avus,  but  only  for  plural :  of.  Desimoni,  Afd 
Soc.  Lig.  Star. pat.  xxviii.  p.  281. 

*  Desimoni,  Atti  Soc.  Lig.  Sior.  pat.  xxviii.  p.  297  ;  see  Riddle,  Scheller's 
Lexicon,  Proavus. 

'  See  Meyer  v.  Knonau,  Heinrich  IV,  in.  199-200. 


Arguments  for  the  single  Adelaide  207 

daughter,  married  Ladislaus,  King  of  Hungary,  probably  about  1079-80, 
about  which  time  her  sister  Agnes  (1079)  married  Berthold  of  Zahringen 
and  her  sister  Bertha  (?  1081  or  1082)  married  Ulric  X  of  Bregenz. 
Thus  they  all  married  young.  But  it  is  difficult  to  think  that  Rudolf 
married  their  mother  Adelaide  before  1066  when  Bertha  married 
Henry  IV.  Also  was  not  Agnes  possibly  daughter  of  Rudolf's  first 
wife,  Matilda,  and  so  granddaughter  of  Empress  Agnes^?  Would  not 
this,  too,  be  the  case  as  to  Matilda,  wife  of  Ernest  of  Austria  ? 

Thus,  in  view  of  these  early  political  marriages,  there  is  no  need  for 
Adelaide,  wife  of  Rudolf,  to  be  born  before  1050.  (d)  In  addition, 
Bertha  was  the  eldest  daughter  of  Adelaide  and  Oddo  I,  and  probably 
their  second  child.  Now  when  she  is  betrothed  to  the  six-year-old 
Henry  IV  at  Christmas  1055,  she  is  described  as  a  mere  child  in  the 
same  terms  as  Henry  IV.  Hence  it  is  most  unlikely  she  was  born 
before  c.   1046'. 

To  sum  up,  the  answers  seem  sufficient,  if  we  can  find  positive 
evidence,  which  should  lead  us  to  identify  the  Adelaides.  This  exists 
in  some  quantity,  (v)  The  wife  of  Duke  Herman  is  daughter  of 
Marquess  Manfred''  and  Countess  Bertha*.  Her  possessions,  inherited 
from  her  father,  form  a  mark'.  Thus  most  of  the  lands  of  North 
Italian  Marquesses  are  ruled  out.  Only  Ulric-Manfred  and  Boniface  of 
Canossa  appear  as  rulers  of  compact  territories  at  this  date".  This 
mark  lay  on  the  frontiers  of  Italy  and  Burgundy,  since  Countess  Bertha, 
Herman's  mother-in-law,  was  able  in  1037  to  capture  envoys,  who 
wished  to  cross  the  Alps  to  Champagne  and  who  met  at  a  trysting-place 
in  Piedmont".  Finally  this  Countess  Adelaide  appears  as  Countess  of 
Albenga  and  as  owning  land  in  the  county*^,  which  Ulric-Manfred,  Alric 
and  Bertha  also  did.  She  became  a  widow  in  July  1038'-'.  (vi)  The 
wife  of  Marquess  Henry  first  appears  in  January  1042",  and  thus  does 
not  clash  with  her  predecessor.  She  is  daughter  of  Marquess  Ulric- 
Manfred"  and  Countess  Bertha'^.    She  is  to  all  seeming  eldest  daughter 

^  See  Meyer  v.  Knonau,  op.  cit.,  i.  203.  ^  See  above,  p.  194,  n.  4. 

^  Car.  Reg.  cil.  and  cxvil.,  see  above,  pp.  191  and  193. 

■*  Car.  Reg.  cxvii.,  see  above,  p.  193. 

^  Car.  Jieg.  cii.,  see  above,  p.  191. 

®  See  above,  pp.  151-5. 

^  Car.  Reg.  cxil.  Ann.  Saxo  1037  {M.G.H.  Script,  vi.  pp.  680-1).  Cf.  Bresslau, 
Koiirad  II,  II.  pp.  •265-6,  and  below,  pp.  219-20.  This  passage  furnishes  the  only 
sound  argument  for  Ulric-Manfred's  possession  of  Ivrea. 

•*  Car.  Reg.  c.xvii.,  see  above,  p.  193,  and  compare  above,  p.  161. 

*  Car.  Reg.  cxv.,  see  above,  p.  193. 

'"  Car.  Reg.  cxxiv.,  see  above,  p.  193. 

"  Car.  Reg.  cxxiv,  cxxviii.  (above,  p.  193),  Sup.  xi.  Reg.  cxxix.  (see  above, 
p.   194). 

^"^  Car.  Reg.  cxxviii.  (above,  p.  193). 


2o8  The  marriages  of  Countess  Adelaide 

and  chief  heiress,  for  she  possesses  all  the  tithes  of  the  Val  di  Susa' 
with  all  the  village  of  Sta  Agata',  except  S.  Giusto  and  its  share,  which 
she  expressly  reserved  ^  just  as  the  heiress  of  the  founder  would.  Why 
should  anyone  else  give  all  save  S.  Giusto's  third,  and  not  rather  say 
"  her  two-thirds  "  ?  She  resides  at  Turin  castle,  Pinerolo  castle  and  at 
Carmagnola^  and  besides  her  property  in  the  Val  di  Susa,  she  owns 
land  at  Pinerolo*,  and  Carmagnola^  She  last  appears  in  June  1044'. 
(vii)  Now  the  wife  of  Marquess  Oddo  cannot  well  have  been  married 
to  him  later  than  1045*.  She,  too,  is  never  contemporaneous  with  the 
other  two  Adelaides.  Oddo  first  takes  the  title  Marquess  in  the  spring 
of  1051^  His  last  certain  appearance  untitled  in  a  Burgundian  deed 
is  in  June  1042'".  Now  his  wife,  who  by  universal  consent  is  the  well- 
known  Ulric-Manfred's  daughter,  is  also  in  a  special  way  the  latter's 
heiress.  She  brings  her  husband  the  style  of  Marquess ;  she  is  Countess 
of  Turin";  her  sisters,  Immula  and  Bertha,  have  small  fractions  of  the 
inheritance  compared  with  her^^.  Her  possessions  are  too  widely 
spread  to  be  given  in  detail ;  but  they  include  Pinerolo^'',  Carmagnola", 
land  in  the  county  of  Albenga^^  Turin  castle^**  and  the  tithes  in  the 
Val  di  Susa^",  which  she  seems  to  dispose  of  by  concession  from  the 
donees  of  Car.  Reg.  cxxiv.^*,  but  the  fact  of  which  still  shows  her  domi- 
nant position  in  the  Valle.  (viii)  But  this  is  not  all.  Adelaide,  when 
widow  of  Oddo  I,  received  a  singular  letter  from  St  Peter  Damian", 
who  was  then  urging  on  the  Papal  campaign  against  married  priests  in 
Lombardy.  Adelaide  seems  to  have  been  in  considerable  sympathy 
with  the  movement,  though  not  in  any  case  where  it  would  affect  her 

1  Car.  Reg.  cxxiv. 

*  Car.  Reg.  cxxviii. 

'  Car.  Reg.  cxxiv.  and  cxxviii. 

*  Car.  Reg.  cxxiv.  cxxviii.  Sup.  xi.,  Reg.  cxxix. 
5  Car.  Sup.  XI.  (see  above,  p.  194). 

*  Car.  Reg.  cxxix.  (see  above,  p.  194). 
^  Car.  Reg.  cxxix. 

*  See  above,  pp.  205-7. 

"  Car.  Rfg.  cxLiii.  (see  above,  p.  194). 

^^  Car.  Reg.  cxxv.  (see  above,  p.  53). 

^^  Car.  Reg.  ccxix.  ;  see  above,  p.  138,  n.  2. 

'^  For  Bertha  see  above,  p.  188,  for  Immula  see  below,  pp.  217,  231-2. 

^*  Car.  Reg.  CXCVii.  {Cartario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  II.  p.  345). 

1*  Car.  Reg.  CLXXIV.  {Carte  antiche  di  Caramagna,  B.S.S.S.  XV.  p.  75). 

15  Car.  Reg.  CLXI.  (Carlario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  II.  p.  323). 

1"  e.g.  Car.  Reg.  ecu.  {Cartario  d'Oulx,  B.S.S.S.  XLV.  p.  42). 

^''  Car.  Reg.  CLI.  (Cartario  d'Oulx,  B.S.S.S.  XLV.  p.  7)  and  CCII.  (see  above, 
n.   16). 

^  See  Cartario  d'Oulx,  B.S.S.S.  XLV.  p.  xiii.  and  pp.  17 1-5. 

'*  Beati  Petri  'Da.miam... opera  omnia,  Paris,  1663,  Vol.  iii.  p.  183,  Opusculum 
XVIII.  Diss.  IV.  Cap.  iii. 


Arguments  for  the  single  Adelaide  209 

power;  but  she  herself  was  considered  by  some  to  be  in  a  parlous  state, 
through  over-marrying.  The  Saint,  however,  administers  consolation, 
"Noli"  he  says,  "ex  divinae  dementiae  pietate  diffidere.  Et  quia  te  novi 
de  iterata  conjugii  gemitiatiotie  suspectam  tentatus  a  Saducaeis  Dominus 
de  muliere,  quae  septem  fuerat  fratribus  nupta,  cui  foret  illorum  in  resur- 
rectione  prae  ceteris  judicanda,  sic  respondit :  in  resurrectione  neque 
nubent  neque  nubentur,  sed  erunt  sicut  angeli  Dei  in  caelo ;  nam,  si 
multivirae  ad  regnum  Dei  nullatenus  pertinerent,  nequaquam  hie  Veritas 
responderet,  'erunt  sicut  angeli  in  caelo';  sed  potius  diceret  :  'quia 
erunt  sicut  maligni  spiritus  in  inferno.'  In  hoc  itaque  Salvatoris  verbo 
manifeste  colligitur,  quia  si  religiosa  duntaxat  vita  non  desit,  a  regno 

caelorum  frequentati  conjugii  pluralitas  non  excludit Et  haec  loquor, 

non  ut  adhibeam  multinubis  adhuc  futuris  audaciam,  sed  ut  jam  factis 
spei  vel  poenitentiae  non  subtraham  medicinam."  The  interpretation 
of  this  letter  seems  barely  to  admit  of  doubt,  if  we  consider  the  first 
claused  It  is  consolation  for  what  Adelaide  fears  on  account  of  her 
frequent  marriages,  not  a  warning  concerning  her  future  action,  which 
St  Peter  Damian  is  writing.  This  is  supported  by  the  phrase  "  iterata 
conjugii  geminatione."  Ge/ninatio  conjugii  means  naturally  a  second 
marriage,  and  therefore  iterata  geminatio  conjugii  means  a  third  mar- 
riage-. In  view  of  the  fact  that  we  have  before  us  three  successive 
husbands  of  Adelaide  who  do  not  overlaps  and  in  view  of  the  strong 
grounds  for  thinking  that  Adelaide  is  one  and  the  same  person,  this  last 
passage  seems  conclusive.  The  well-known  Adelaide,  widow  of  Oddo  I 
of  Savoy,  had  already  three  times  been  married. 

As,  however,  the  double-Adelaide  theory  has  twice  been  mooted 
again  of  recent  years,  it  will  be  best  to  make  some  remarks  on  these 
latest  restatements.  M.  Renaux  proposes  the  following  view.  Ardoin 
Glabrio's  sons  divided  their  inheritance.  Manfred  took  his  share 
mainly  round  Turin,  Ardoin  IV  his  towards  Romagnano  (the  author 
thus  making  Guido  and  Boso  his  sons)  and  Oddo  I  his  in  the  South 

1  M.  Renaux,  however  {op.  cit.  750-4),  strangely  thinks  that  St  Peter  Damian  is 
really  urging  Adelaide  not  to  proceed  harshly  against  the  often-married.  In  support 
he  cites  the  subsequent  adjurations  to  her  to  proceed  with  caution.  But  these  belong 
to  the  next  chapter  ;  and  definitely  begin  a  new  side  of  the  subject.  And  the  whole 
tractate  is  against  the  marriage  of  the  clergy,  not  against  the  repeated  marriage  of 
the  laity. 

^  This  is  of  course  only  an  argument  from  general  probability,  as  in  a  rhetorical 
passage,  the  Saint  would  not  be  exactly  careful  as  to  his  phrases,  but  the  evident 
scandal  and  the  references  to  multivirae  and  tnultinubae,  taken  all  together,  seem 
decisive  for  the  meaning  "a  third  marriage."  As  to  the  words,  see  Freund,  Worter- 
buck,  Geminatio,  a  doubling,  e.g.  geminatio  verborum  (Cicero) ;  but  also  a  joining 
together  (Gellius)  :  An  TuUius  inani  et  illepida  geminatione  junxerit  manubias  et 
praedam. 

P.  o.  14 


2IO  The  marriaees  of  Countess  Adelaide 


f5 


round  Albenga.  Oddo  I  had  a  son  Ulric-Manfred,  an  exact  namesake 
of  Ulric-Manfred  of  Turin,  who  added  to  his  crimes  by  taking  a  wife 
named  Bertha  too.  He  was  the  father  of  Adelaide,  wife  of  Herman 
and  Henry.  On  her  marriage  with  Herman,  Albenga  was  made  a 
separate  mark^  After  Henry's  death  she  made  a  third  marriage,  by 
which  she  had  a  daughter  Adelaide,  who  married  Boniface  I  of  Vasto  ^ 
The  evidence  for  this  second  Adelaide's  existence  being  derived  from 
a  charter  of  the  Boniface  of  1196  (Car.  Reg.  cccxc),  which  speaks 
of  the  donations  to  S.  Stefano  of  his  ava  Adalasia  and  is  supported  by 
the  mention  of  Boniface  I's  wife  Adelasia  in  1095  (Car.  Reg.  ccxxxi.) 
in  a  Sicilian  poem  on  Boniface  I's  niece ;  this  cannot  be  the  Adelaide 
of  cccxxxviii.  and  cxvii.,  for  why  should  Boniface  of  Cravesana  re- 
confirm his  confirmation  of  cxvii.?  Thus  William  and  Boniface  of 
Cravesana  were  really  great-grandsons  of  Adelaide  of  Albenga.  The  main 
grounds  for  this  theory  I  have  already  discussed,  and  the  main  grounds 
against  it :  but  I  may  add  a  few  special  objections  :  (i)  It  involves  the 
creation  of  an  unknown  and  unattested  namesake  of  Ulric-Manfred  and 
brother  of  Ardoin  V,  and  a  similar  namesake  of  Countess  Bertha, 
(ii)  It  utterly  fails  to  explain  how  Herman's  mother-in-law  could  capture 
the  envoys  at  the  passes  in  1037* — Albenga  being  on  the  coast,  (iii)  It 
has  been  shown  by  Padre  Savio*  that  William  and  Boniface  descended 
from  Boniface  I's  last  wife,  Agnes  of  Vermandois.  Ava  in  Car.  Reg. 
cccxc.  must  therefore  be  a  slip  iox proavia  (see  above,  p.  206).  cccxc. 
also  is  a  renunciation  of  feudal  rights  claimed  by  Boniface  over  land 
the  grant  of  which  he  had  already  confirmed,  an  obvious  reference  to 
CCCXXXVIII.  and  cxvii.  It  is  not  a  re-confirmation,  but  an  acquiescence 
in  the  monks'  construction  of  their  rights.  Of  Boniface  I's  earlier  wife, 
we  only  know  two  children,  the  disinherited  Boniface  of  Incisa  and  a 
nameless  daughter.  That  this  first  wife's  name  was  Adelaide,  "daughter 
of  Manfred,  Marquess  of  Saluzzo,"  we  only  know  from  a  late  chroni- 
cle^^  It  is  likely  to  be  true,  though  the  style  "  Saluzzo"  is  absurd,  for 
Saluzzo  at  this  time  was  a  curtis  in  the  county  of  Aurade.     But  there 

^  Thus  gaining  its  twelfth  century  name  of  mark  of  Albenga,  op.  cit.  734-5- 

2  See  above,  Car.  Reg.  cccxxxviii.  p.  198  and  n.  i,  and  pp.  205,  206. 

^  See  below,  p.  219. 

*  //  ffiarchese  Bonifacio  del  Vasto  ecc.  Atti  R.  Accad.  Scienze,  Torino,  xxil. 
(1886-7),  PP"  94  ^"^  97-  The  argument  is:  Boniface  I  in  his  will,  1125  {Reg. 
Alarch.  Saluzzo,  B.S.S.S.  xvi.  p.  5),  gives  his  sons  in  the  following  order,  Manfred, 
William,  Ugo(magno),  Anselm,  etc.  Ugomagno  was  certainly  son  of  Agnes,  as  he 
bears  her  father's  name.  Manfred  is  called  son  of  Agnes  by  Pope  Eugenius  III  on 
22  Sept.  1 146  {Reg.  March.  Sal.,  B.S.S.S.  xvi.  p.  10).  Thus  Anselm  whose  name 
comes  invariably  after  theirs  should  also  be  Agnes'  son,  and  he  is  father  of  William 
and  Boniface. 

5  Goffredo  della  Chiesa,  M.H.P.  Script,  iii.  860.     The  supposed  reference  to  her 


Views  of  Renaux  and  Gabotto  211 

is  a  Manfred  (II)  Marquess  of  Romagnano  who  could  be  father  of  the 
lady\  In  any  case  the  descent  of  William  and  Boniface  from  Agnes 
settles  the  question. 

The  third  theory,  and  the  most  ingenious  of  all  those  concerning 
the  double  Adelaide,  we  owe  to  the  learning  and  acuteness  of  Professor 
Gabotto^.  He  pointed  out  that  the  phrase  iterata  conjugii  gefninatio 
referred  to  the  past,  and  that  St  Peter  Damian's  letter  contains  a  conso- 
lation, not  a  warning.  But  he  held  that  Gemmatio  conjugii  was  merely 
a  term  for  marriage ;  and  thus  iterata  conjugii  geminatio  meant  only 
being  married  twice.  Hence,  he  said,  Adelaide,  widow  of  Oddo  I  of 
Savoy,  had  only  been  married  twice.  The  references  to  Adelaide,  wife 
of  Herman,  show  her  to  be  identical  with  the  wife  of  Oddo  I.  Thus  it 
is  the  wife  of  Henry  who  is  the  distinct  person.  She  must  be  another 
daughter  of  the  well-known  Ulric-Manfred,  with  her  dowry  placed  in 
the  Pinerolese.  Perhaps  it  was  her  daughter  who  married  Boniface  I 
from  whom  Boniface  and  William  of  Cravesana  were  descended^  In 
this  way  the  chronology  of  the  great  Adelaide's  and  Oddo  I's  descen- 
dants is  not  so  cramped,  for  the  two  could  marry  before  1045.  Pro- 
fessor Gabotto  claims  that  it  is  even  more  cramped  than  Signori  Provana 
and  Labruzzi  had  thought.  He  says  that  in  the  charter  of  1090  (Car. 
Reg.  ccxvii.,  see  above,  p.  197),  Humbert  and  Manasses,  the  two  sons 
of  the  Adelaide  of  Coligny,  "  laudant "  the  deed,  and  therefore  must 
be  at  least  seven  years  of  age.  Thus  Adelaide  of  Coligny  would  marry 
at  sixteen  in  1081,  and  would  be  born  in  1065  :  and  her  father  Ama- 
deus  II  would  be  born  in  1046  and  married  at  eighteen,  no  exorbitant 
age.  Since  he  was  third  child ^  it  makes  it  very  difficult  for  the  great 
Adelaide  to  marry  Oddo  I  in  time  after  Henry's  death,  which  occurred 
after  June  1044.  To  this  argument  he  adds  the  strangeness  of  the  fact 
that  Adelaide  should  only  have  children,  who  came  in  rapid  succession, 
by  her  third  husband. 

Professor  Gabotto's  argument  is  worked  out  with  great  force,  it 
must  be  owned ;  but  its  items  admit  of  answers  :  (i)  St  Peter  Damian's 
references  to  mttltivirae,  multinubae  seem  much  too  excessive,  if  he  is 

in  Car.  Reg.  ccxxxi.  (1095)  rests  on  a  truncation  of  the  passage.  The  full  text  is 
(Acta  Sanctorum,  ed.  1863  etc.  Oct.  Vol.  III.  p.  657)  : 

Totus  orbis  claret  orbis  Neptis  ornat,  quem  exornat 

Claro  natalitio  :  Uxor  Adelasia, 

Marchionis  militonis  Brutiorum  Siculorum 

Bonifacii  Itali  Comitem  Rogerium. 

It  is  one  Adelaide  who  is  Boniface's  niece  and  Roger's  wife. 

^  Carutti,  Umberto  I  ecc.  p.  249.     But  as  Boniface  married  her  in  1079  (Savio,  op, 
cit.  p.  90)  the  dates  are  rather  close  together. 

^  See  his  V Abazia...di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  I.  pp.  89-96. 

*  See  above,  p.  210.  *  See  above,  p.  205. 

14 — 2 


212  The  marriages  of  Countess  Adelaide 


CO 

Q 


O 

Q 

< 
W 

H 

O 
> 
O 

< 

w 

w 
o 


I2;  i?  => 

-     0C-, 


>  ^ 


s  ,- 


o   12:2 
S   1- t«  S^ 

2  5S  f- 


O  s 


l_:r  o' 


<^ 


.5  -^ 
"-  L!5  So 


P50o 


0-0 


1-1    lU 

J3  0 

ic 

ss  of 
nagnano 
1  1040 

0 

-♦• 

0 

0  " 

pS;:^ 

rt 

"--5  o 


o<i5' 


-am 


Li;  ^  - 


u 


<=  2      a.      *- 


5 


"-< 


T,  ,«^ 


F  I 


3     -5 


<,-. 


-1-  2  '^ 

o  o  <*  o 

- 1.    'yi  f-i  -   *-•  - 

pa  =^c  ^  « 


■^3 


_  c  J  -  o 


&0 


w  s 


OS 

2  rt 

o  ^ 
■  oi 

t;  1)  o 


o 


o"  o  H  vo 

^  Co  c  o-ns-S 


W     N—, 


US 


OS 


Conclusion  213 

only  thinking  of  a  second  marriage.  He  was  soothing,  not  frightening, 
Adelaide,  and  would  hardly  paint  her  indiscretion,  if  so  it  was,  in  such 
lurid  colours.  Besides,  was  a  second  marriage  really  condemned  by 
the  reformers  of  the  time  ?  (ii)  As  we  have  seen,  the  argument  for  the 
wife  of  Henry  being  identical  with  the  wives  of  Herman  and  Oddo  I  is 
strong  ^  And,  in  case  of  non-identity,  surely  it  is  very  strange  that  the 
great  Adelaide  should  disappear  just  in  those  years  when  her  sister  and 
namesake  played  so  prominent  a  part.  The  point  as  to  Boniface  I's 
first  wife  1  have  already  dealt  with-,  (iii)  The  Coligny  charter  is  only 
known  by  a  seventeenth  century  publication^.  We  are  not  even  certain 
that  Humbert  and  Manasses  really  "laudaverunt,"  for  some  word  may 
have  dropped  out.  And  must  Humbert  and  Manasses  really  have 
been  seven  years  old  in  order  to  "laudare"?  The  archpriest  of  Coligny 
acts  for  them ;  it  is  he  who  seals.  Need  they  have  been  more  than 
four  or  five  ■*  ?  (iv)  The  absence  of  children  till  the  third  marriage  is 
certainly  strange.  Still,  it  is  doubtful  if  that  with  Herman  was  much 
more  than  formal.  He  was  with  Conrad  H's  army  it  seems  most  of 
the  time^  And  I  may  add  that  it  is  a  possible  case  that  children  who 
survive  are  only  born  after  some  years  of  marriage.  This  might  be 
partly  the  reason  why  Adelaide's  eldest  known  child  is  the  son  of  her 
third  husband. 

Thus  the  conclusion,  after  the  discussion  of  the  rival  opinions, 
would  seem  to  be  that  we  may  take  it  that  we  have  only  one  Adelaide, 
with  three  husbands,  to  deal  with. 


Section  V.    Countess  Adelaide  and  her  husbands. 

The  period  of  sixty  years  which  followed  Ulric-Manfred's  death 
falls  naturally  into  two  sub-periods  of  about  thirty  years  each,  divided 
by  the  date  of  the  death  of  Marquess  Oddo  I  of  Savoy  about  1060. 
The  first  sub-period  corresponds  to  the  time  in  imperial  history  when 
the  Holy  Roman  Emperors,  the  Franconians  Conrad  H  and  Henry  HI, 
approached  nearest  to  their  ideal  of  universal  and  effectual  supremacy. 
From  a  Piedmontese  point  of  view,  it  is  a  colourless  time  when  the 

1  See  above,  pp.  207-9.  ^  ^^^  above,  p.  ■210  and  n.  4. 

*  See  above,  p.  197,  n.  2. 

*  Savio,  I primi  conti  ecc.  p.  478,  gives  an  instance;  Hugh  Duke  of  Burgundy 
and  Dauphin  in  1189  makes  a  grant  to  Oulx  [Carte... dCOulx,  B.S.S.S.  XLV.  p.  199), 
"  annuente  Beatrice... uxore  nostra  et  hberis  nostris  quos  ex  ea  suscepimus."  As 
Hugh  married  Beatrice  not  before  1183,  their  eldest  child  could  not  be  more  than  five 
years  old.  Cf.  the  laudatio  by  Humbert  III  in  1137,  when  he  was  probably  two  or 
three  years  old  (see  below,  p.  292). 

^  See  below,  pp.  217-20.     There  is  no  trace  left  of  his  presence  in  the  Mark. 


2  14  Countess  Adelaide  and  her  husbands 

Turinese  mark  is  ruled  on  the  lines  last  laid  down  by  Ulric-Manfred, 
and  when  its  heiress  is  a  religious,  but  retiring  figure,  who  is  over- 
shadowed by  her  elder  relatives  and  successive  husbands.  But  with 
the  second  sub-period  we  enter  a  new  world.  Under  the  Emperor 
Henry  IV  the  foundations  of  the  Empire  quake  and  the  long  and  fatal 
strife  of  Empire  and  Papacy  begins.  In  Piedmont  the  widowed  Ade- 
laide appears  as  a  virile  ruler  of  her  mark  and  a  factor  in  imperial 
politics,  but  under  her  the  symptoms  of  the  decline  of  the  marchional 
power  are  clearly  visible,  although  her  personality  maintains  it  until  the 
war  of  succession  on  her  death  brings  about  its  collapse.  For  the 
future  history  of  her  country,  both  parts  of  her  reign  have  a  peculiar 
interest,  since  it  was  due  to  her  marriage  with  Oddo  I,  and  to  the  share 
her  grandson  Humbert  II  obtained  of  her  inheritance,  that  the  House 
of  Savoy  first  entered  on  its  long  and  glorious  dominion  in  Italy. 

We  may  doubt  if  Adelaide  was  of  very  mature  years  when  her 
father  died  and,  presumably  by  will,  left  her  the  lion's  share  of  the 
Ardoinid  inheritance ^  At  any  rate,  it  is  her  mother  Bertha  and  her 
uncle  Bishop  Alric,  not  the  Countess  herself,  who  appear  in  the  history 
of  these  years.  Of  Alric,  who  seems  always  to  have  lived  in  harmony 
with  his  elder  brother,  we  have  a  description,  in  which  he  figures  as  a 
bluff,  warrior-bishop,  portly  in  figure  and  not  over-burdened  with  human 
learning  ^  But  he  had  to  deal  with  a  crisis :  for  the  old  feud  between 
the  greater  and  lesser  milites^  was  now  revived  and  rose  to  the  pitch  of 
civil  war.  By  this  time  the  benefices  held  by  the  Counts  and  great 
nobles,  the  capilanei,  from  King  and  Church,  had  become  hereditary. 
Of  course  they  could  be  deprived  of  them  in  case  of  treason,  but  so 
they  could  be  of  alodial  land.  The  Bishops'  estates,  mostly  alodial  as 
they  then  were,  naturally  were  still  less  alienable.  In  consequence  the 
insecurity  of  the  secundi  milites,  who  held  benefices  from  the  principes 

^  I  deduce  this  from  Suffred's  two  deeds  (see  above,  p.  191)  where  only  Adelaide 
and  her  possible  son  are  mentioned  in  the  entail,  with  no  reference  to  either  Immula 
or  Bertha. 

^  See  Benzo  Albensis  episcopus,  Bk.  iv.  4  (written  c.  1076-9)  {M.G.H.  Script. 
XI.  638)  : 

Qui  nos  autem  praecesserunt,  barones  et  incliti, 
Magni  precii  fuerunt  nullatenus  timidi, 
Apparebant  phantasiis  in  vultu  terribili. 


Pocior  fuit  Alricus,  tardus  corpulentia, 
Quam  sit  Ingo  satis  celer  in  adolescentia, 
In  humana  qui  confidit  nimis  sapientia. 
Benzo  is  contrasting  the  Bishops  of  his  day  with  those  of  the  past  generation.     Alric 
writes  a  firm  and  clumsy  signature  (Cipolla,  facsimile  in  Carte  di  S.  Giusto,  Bull.  Istit. 
stor.  ital.  18). 

*  See  above,  pp.  166-7. 


The  revolt  of  the  lesser  nobles  215 

or  Bishops,  sometimes  by  two  or  three  degrees  of  dependence,  became 
more  and  more  glaring.  It  is  obvious  that  as  smaller  alodial  holders 
were  squeezed  out  in  the  struggle  for  existence,  the  precarious  nature  of 
sub-benefices  meant  that  the  whole  class  of  lesser  landowners  were  at 
the  mercy  of  the  prhicipes.  As  to  the  latter,  there  does  not  now  appear 
the  antagonism,  so  marked  in  1000,  between  them  and  the  Bishops. 
They  had  much  the  same  interests  with  the  latter,  as  against  the  secundi 
milites ;  and  we  may  suspect  that  the  possession  of  the  publica  potestas, 
in  which  the  grants  of  immunity,  the  prevalence  of  serfdom,  and  the 
linking  up  of  the  free  landholders  in  the  feudal  chain,  had  already 
made  such  large  breaches,  was  being  still  further  decreased  in  value  by 
the  rising  independence  of  the  city-dwellers.  The  citizens  were  gene- 
rally composed  at  this  time  it  seems  of  three  ranks  or  classes.  There 
were  the  capitanei  and  the  lesser  knights,  who  both  were  largely 
amphibious,  city-  and  country-dwellers,  perhaps  partly  as  a  result  of 
the  long  pagan  ravages  of  the  past  century,  and  partly  also  due  to 
the  secular  characteristics  of  Italian  civilization.  Then  there  were  the 
traders  proper,  non-nobles.  The  relations  of  these  three  sections  would 
differ  according  to  circumstances.  A  numerous  section  of  the  capitanei 
would,  as  we  have  seen,  be  generally  in  accord  with  the  Bishops  and 
Counts,  the  more  part  of  the  marchional  families  at  this  period  being  in 
process  of  becoming  only  the  greatest  of  the  priticipes.  The  lesser 
knights  might  be  on  good  terms  with  the  traders  and  even  be  taking  to 
trade  themselves ;  or  else  where  the  traders  had  no  reason  to  complain 
of  the  Bishop's  use  of  his  "public  functions,"  and  the  lesser  knights 
had  remained  purely  chivalrous  in  character,  the  two,  as  happened  at 
Milan,  might  be  opposed  '. 

In  the  mark  of  Turin  we  may  suspect  that  the  division  of  interest 
between  greater  and  lesser  nobles  had  not  proceeded  to  such  an  extent 
as  it  often  did.  The  cohesion  of  the  mark  and  the  power  of  the 
Marquesses  seem  to  hint  at  this.  In  Turin  itself  we  have  found  Ulric- 
Manfred  obliged  to  take  account  of  the  citizens'  wishes,  and  in  the  end 
winning  a  street-fight ;  but  no  mention  of  the  secundi  milites  as  a  class 
is  made-.  In  Asti  we  know  the  trading-class  had  reached  great  im- 
portance :  Asti,  not  Turin,  was  the  centre  of  trade  between  the  Mont 
Cenis  and  Genoa  and  east  Lombardy.  And  perhaps  we  may  conclude 
that  here  the  secundi  milites  had  tended  to  take  up  mercantile  pur- 
suits ^ 

1  See  Bresslau,  Konrad II,  ii.  193-210. 

^  See  above,  pp.  184-5. 

^  We  find  Alric  in  1029  promising  to  keep  to  the  customary'  dues  from  the  men  of 
S.  Martino-Alfieri  {Piii  antiche  carte. ..d' Asti,  B.S.S.S.  xxviii.  p.  318).  But  this  is 
a  purely  agricultural  agreement. 


2i6  Countess  Adelaide  and  her  husbands 

However  this  may  be,  the  impulse  to  war  was  given  at  Milan.  On 
his  return  from  Burgundy  the  triumphant  Archbishop  Aribert  had  re- 
doubled his  harshness  and  disregard  of  others'  claims — he  had  always 
been  inclined  that  way — till  at  last  c.  1035  the  lesser  knights  formed  a 
conspiracy  against  him.  Matters  came  to  a  head  when  Aribert  seized 
on  the  benefice  of  one  of  the  more  important  of  them.  The  fact  that 
he  could  do  so  shows  that  we  must  not  draw  the  line  between  greater 
and  lesser  nobles  merely  so  as  to  coincide  with  the  line  between  the 
vassals  of  the  Crown  and  Church,  and  the  more  remote  vassals  who  held 
in  their  turn  from  the  principes.  They  flew  to  arms,  and,  after  some  vain 
parleying  on  the  Archbishop's  side,  the  two  parties  engaged  in  a  street- 
fight.  Aribert,  supported  by  the  principes  and  general  mass  of  the  people, 
succeeded  in  driving  out  the  rebel  valvassors.  But  his  victory  ended 
there.  The  expelled  knights  allied  themselves  with  the  rest  of  their 
class  in  the  counties  round.  Those  of  Seprio,  Martesana  and  Lodi, 
but  newly  subject  to  Milan,  are  especially  mentioned ;  but  most  of 
North  Italy  was  involved.  In  answer  to  their  confederation  the  Bishops 
and  great  nobles  formed  a  league  of  their  own,  in  which  Alric  was  a 
prominent  member ;  and  the  two  forces  came  to  a  pitched  battle  on 
the  7th  December  1035  at  Malocampo  near  Lodi.  Renewed  attempts 
at  a  composition  failed,  and  in  the  fighting  the  valiant  Alric  fell'.  His 
death  decided  the  day ;  Aribert  and  the  discouraged  principes  retreated. 
No  such  result  had  been  obtained,  however,  by  the  secundi  milites  as 
would  in  any  way  end  the  contest.     They  withdrew  also^. 

Both  parties,  thus  unable  to  overcome  one  another,  appealed  to  the 
Emperor  for  help.  Early  in  1036  Conrad  II  had  resolved  on  another 
expedition  to  Italy  to  settle  matters,  as  was  indeed  his  plain  duty.  His 
German  preoccupations,  however,  delayed  his  march  till  December. 
But  meanwhile  he  made  an  important  stroke  of  policy.  It  seems  quite 
likely  that  Countess  Bertha  was  embarrassed  by  Alric's  death  at  such  a 
critical  moment,  and  that  she  herself  and  at  least  two  of  her  daughters 
crossed  the  Alps  to  the  Emperor.  Perhaps  they  kept  Easter  with  him 
on  the  1 8th  April  at  Ingelheim.  Conrad  had  clearly  made  up  his 
mind  what  to  do  with  regard  to  the  Ardoinids.  The  mark  of  Turin,  so 
important  for  the  entrances  to  Italy  on  the  west,  was  to  be  maintained, 
but  its  possessors  were  to  be  kept  in  close  alliance  with  the  imperial 

^  Arnulf.  Mediol.  11.  11  (M.G.H.  Script,  vni.  14):  "Inter  quos  dum  incederet 
medius  jamdictus  Astensis  configitur  episcopus,  pars  denique  maxima  belli.  Cujus 
interitus  certaminis  factus  est  terminus.  Hie  (Heribertus)  amisso  tanto  fratre  confusus, 
illi  autem  occiso  tanto  hoste  securi,  recedentes  a  pugna  diverterunt  ad  propria." 
Herim.  Aug.  fixes  the  year  1035 ;  Necrol.  S.  Solutoris  Taurin.  (M.H.P.  Script,  in.  229), 
the  day  of  Alric's  death. 

^  See  for  this  account,  Bresslau,  Konrad  II,  li.  193-213. 


Herman   Marquess  of  Turin  217 

House.  They  would  also  counterbalance  the  growing  power  of  the 
Marquess  of  Canossa  and  Tuscany,  Boniface.  Accordingly,  Adelaide, 
the  eldest  daughter,  was  promptly  married  to  the  Emperor's  stepson, 
Herman  Duke  of  Swabia,  and,  more  important  still,  the  latter  was  in- 
vested with  the  mark  of  Turin,  just  as  Boniface  of  Canossa  had  been 
invested  with  that  of  Tuscany  some  years  earlier,  and  just  as  if  it  were 
a  German  duchy.  Thus  something  very  like  strict  primogeniture,  aided, 
probably,  by  Ulric- Manfred's  will,  was  established  for  the  mark  of 
Turin.  But  this  was  not  all.  At  the  synod  of  Tribur,  held  in  May 
1036,  Otto  of  Schweinfurt,  a  great  Franconian  noble,  was  freed  from 
his  former  betrothal  to  a  Polish  princess,  and  was,  it  seems,  married 
instead  to  Irmingarde  or  Immula,  the  sister  of  Adelaide'.  This  was  of 
course  in  accordance  with  Conrad's  general  policy  of  promoting  inter- 
marriage between  German  and  Italian  grandees";  but  it  also  shows  his 
special  anxiety  concerning  the  mark  of  Turin  ^ 

It  was  in  the  second  half  of  March  1037  that  Conrad  held  an 
Italian  assembly  at  Pavia.  He  was  already  on  strained  terms  with 
Aribert  and  complaints  came  thick  and  fast  against  the  latter.  Among 
the  aggrieved  was  the  Count  of  Milan  himself,  Hugh,  the  senior  Otber- 
tine  Marquess,  Bertha's  brother.  Aribert  absolutely  refused  to  give 
satisfaction  or  to  submit  to  the  Emperor's  tribunal.  Thereupon  he  was 
put  to  the  ban  of  the  Empire  and  placed  in  custody.    Conrad  seemed  to 

1  Otto  was  later  made  Duke  of  Swabia  and   died    28  September  1057  (Meyer 

V.  Knonau,  Heinrich  IV,  i.  47).  Immula  then  married  Ekbert  Marquess  of  Meissen. 
See  below,  pp.  231-2. 

^  Bresslau,  Konrad  II,  11.  17 1-3. 

'  This  account  does  not  profess  to  be  more  than  a  reconstruction.  The  grounds  of 
it  are  these:  (i)  25  Dec.  1035,  Suffred  (see  above,  p.  191)  apparently  treats  Adelaide 
as  heiress  of  the  Mark,  but  mentions  no  husband,  though  he  speaks  of  the  possibility 
of  her  having  a  son.  I  infer  she  was  chief  heiress  by  her  father's  will,  and  was  not 
yet  married,  (ii)  Heriman.  Aug.  [M.G.H.  Script,  v.  122)  1036,  says  :  "  Herimannus 
quoque  dux  Alamanniae  marcham  soceri  sui  Meginfridi  in  Italia  ab  imperatore 
accepit."  Thus  he  had  married  Adelaide  and  received  Ulric-Manfred's  offices  from 
the  Emperor.  In  just  this  way  the  German  duchies  (which  too  were  quasi-hereditary) 
were  conferred.  Herman  would  hardly  be  invested  long  after  his  marriage.  Rather 
it  would  happen  just  after  the  ceremony.  Conrad  was  in  Germany;  thus  Adelaide 
(and  probably  her  mother)  must  have  come  thither,     (iii)  Ann.  Saxo  {M.G.H.  Script. 

VI.  679)  1036,  says,  Conrad  celebrated  Easter  at  Ingelheim  (easy  to  get  to  from  the 
Great  St  Bernard)  and  then  held  a  synod  at  Tribur  close  by.  "  Otto  de  Suinvorde, 
cogente  sinodo,  Machtildem  sibi  desponsatam  juramento  a  se  abalienavit.  Post  banc 
accepit  uxorem  que  Emilias  vol  Immula  seu  Irmingardis  dicta  fuit,  sororque  illius 
Adelas  dicta  nupserat  Ottoni  marchioni  de  Italia:  peperit  aulem  predicta  Immula... 
Ottoni  V  tilias,  etc."  Now  in  view  of  the  last  two  statements  one  cannot  be  sure  that 
the  marriage  to  Immula  took  place  at  Tribur ;  but  it  is  not  likely  that  the  match  with 
Matilda  was  broken  off  with  no  one  else  in  view  ;  and  as  Adelaide  seems  to  be 
married  to  Herman  about  this  time,  Immula  probably  came  with  her  to  Germany. 


2i8  Countess  Adelaide  and  her  husbands 

have  acted  with  foresight.  He  had  the  support  of  the  marchional 
Houses.  Aribert  had  quarrelled  with  the  secundi  milites.  But  the 
Milanese  in  general  stood  by  their  Archbishop.  He  had  never  had 
"  public  functions  "  to  vex  them  with.  The  city's  greatness  and  the 
control  of  Lodi  were  bound  up  with  the  see  of  St  Ambrose,  and 
perhaps  even  some  of  the  secundi  milites  changed   sides. 

Aribert's  captivity  was  not  of  long  duration.  Before  the  close  of 
March  he  had  escaped  and  was  exultingly  received  at  Milan.  Conrad  H 
summoned  fresh  forces  from  Germany,  called  for  the  aid  of  the  Italian 
Marquesses,  and  began  the  siege  of  Milan  early  in  May.  The  situation 
was  a  curious  one.  The  rebel  forces  were  led  by  the  Bishops,  in 
general  the  supporters  of  the  German  monarchy,  with  Aribert,  the 
former  champion  of  Conrad  H,  at  their  head.  The  faction  seems  to 
consist  mainly  of  townsmen,  whether  of  the  landed  or  trading  sections. 
Against  them  Conrad  11  leads  the  Marquesses,  who  must  have  drawn 
with  them  the  greater  part  of  the  principes,  so  closely  akin  to  them,  and 
also  those  secundi  milites  who  belonged  more  to  the  country  than  the 
town.  The  latter  were  now  to  have  their  grievances  remedied.  By  an 
imperial  constitution  of  the  28th  May  1037,  Conrad  H  decreed  that 
those  vassals  of  his  vassals  and  also  the  vassals  on  alodial  church- 
property  should  hold  their  benefices  by  hereditary  right  in  the  male  line 
and  that  they  could  only  be  deprived  of  them  after  conviction  by  their 
peers  of  a  definite  crime,  from  which  judgement,  too,  there  was  right  of 
appeal  to  the  Emperor,  or  to  his  missus  in  the  case  of  the  lesser  valvassors  ^ 
The  eflFect  of  this  law  must  have  been  in  one  way  to  increase  the  number 
of  real  proprietors  of  the  soil,  and  was  thus  a  reversion  to  an  older  social 
state.  In  another  it  was  a  step  in  the  break-up  of  the  "public  power"; 
for  the  secundi  milites,  now  secure,  and  mainly  having  serfs  under  them, 
would  have  less  occasion  to  yield  obedience  to  the  comital  jurisdiction 
or  to  attend  placita.     So,  too,  perhaps,  it  would  lead  to  the  formation 

^  M.G.H.  Constit.  i.  90:  "  precipimus...ut  nullus  miles  episcoporum,  abbatum, 
abbatissarum,  aut  marchionum  vel  comitum  vel  omnium  qui  benefitiumde  nostris  pub- 
licis  bonis  aut  de  ecclesiarum  prediis  tenet  nunc  aut  tenuerit  vel  hactenus  injuste  perdidit, 
tarn  de  nostris  majoribus  valvassoribus  quam  et  eorum  militibus,  sine  certa  et  convicta 
culpa  suum  beneficium  perdat,  nisi  secundum  constitucionem  antecessorum  nostrorum 
et  judicium  parium  suorum....Precipimus  etiani,  ut  cum  aliquis  miles  sive  de  majoribus 
sive  de  minoribus  de  hoc  seculo  migraverit,  filius  ejus  beneficium  habeat.  Si  vero 
filium  non  habuerit  et  abiaticum  ex  masculo  filio  reliquerit,  pari  modo  beneficium 
habeat,  servato  usu  majorum  valvassorum  in  dandis  equis  et  armis  suis  senioribus,  etc." 
These  clauses  show  that  some  greater  viilites  or  valvassors,  vi'ho  held  from  direct 
vassals  of  the  Crown  or  from  alodial  church-land,  were  among  the  aggrieved  (as  the 
story  of  Archbishop  Aribert  indicates)  as  well  as  the  lesser  tnilites  or  valvassors  who 
held  from  these  greater  valvassors  themselves.  The  dividing  line  may  have  been  more 
fixed  by  the  extent  of  property  held  than  by  the  precise  link  occupied  in  the  feudal 
chain. 


Conrad   II  and  Countess  Bertha  219 

of  courts  of  vassals  to  decide  on  questions  of  land,  on  which  the  ipse 
dixit  of  the  lord  was  formerly  sufficient,  and  so  a  new  feudal  array  of 
courts  would  grow  up.  The  Bishops  would  clearly  be  the  chief  sufferers, 
both  as  holders  of  the  publica  potestas  and  because  they  had  not,  like 
the  Marquesses  and  capitanei,  vast  demesne-lands  held  by  members 
of  their  own  family  which  would  provide  a  fighting  force  to  compel 
obedience  from  their  insubordinate  vassals.  For  the  present  they  had 
support  in  the  towns,  but  there  were  strong  symptoms  that  this  was  not 
likely  to  last. 

Conrad  was  not  blind  to  the  necessity  of  conciliating  the  townsfolk, 
and  gave  an  instance  of  his  perspicuity  in  the  case  of  Asti.  What 
happened  there  after  Alric's  death  is  not  known,  but  on  the  i8th  June 
1037  Conrad  grants  a  diploma  to  Oberto,  whom  he  has  nominated 
Bishop,  by  which  he  exempts  the  Astigians  from  all  tolls  in  the  Empire, 
especially  those  of  the  valley  of  Susa'.  This  also,  however,  has  the 
aspect  of  being  an  attempt  of  Oberto  to  buy  submission  from  his 
unruly  townsfolk. 

The  siege  of  Milan  was  unsuccessful  and  was  given  up  by  the  end 
of  May.  The  baffled  Emperor  went  the  length  of  deposing  the  rebel 
Archbishop  from  his  see,  by  a  remarkable  stretch  of  power  for  the  ^Vest. 
Aribert's  reply  was  to  attempt  to  set  up  a  rival  King  of  Italy.  Conrad's 
old  enemy,  Eudes  II  of  Champagne',  when  he  heard  of  the  Emperor's 
difficulties,  had  burst  into  Lorraine,  ravaging  and  plundering,  and  might 
be  tempted  to  attack  Burgundy  again.  Accordingly  Aribert,  with  the 
Bishops  of  Vercelli,  Piacenza  and  Cremona,  all  of  whom  were  publicly 
on  the  Emperor's  side,  sent  secret  envoys  to  Champagne,  with  the  usual 
promises  of  the  royal  and  imperial  crowns,  and  of  an  insurrection  in 
Eudes'  favour.  The  Count  at  once  swallowed  the  bait  and  named  a  day 
and  trysting-place  in  Piedmont  where  the  mutual  oaths  were  to  be  taken 
and  the  treaty  concluded.  But  the  scheme  failed  :  one  of  the  messen- 
gers, Albert  the  strong,  was  seized  by  Countess  Bertha  of  Turin,  who 
now  appears  as  the  real  ruler  of  the  mark  ;  and  the  arrangement  was 
learnt  from  the  letters  he  carried.  She  sent  troops  on  the  appointed 
day,  presumably  to  some  small  place  on  one  of  the  passes,  and  captured 
the  entire  gathering  of  envoys.  Their  letters  she  sent  to  the  Emperor, 
who  received  them  in  an  assembly  where  the  three  treacherous  Bishops 
were  present.  The  detected  prelates  were  promptly  arrested  and  sent 
beyond  the  Alps^.     Meantime  Eudes  II  himself  made  a  second  inroad 

1  M.G.H.  Dipl.  IV.  337. 

^  See  above,  p.  24  ff. 

3  Ann.  Saxo  {M.G.H.  Script,  vi.  680-1)  1037,  thus  describes  Bertha's  action: 
"  Interea  supradictorum  conspiratorum  Deo  nequiciam  dctegente,  quedam  fidelis 
domna,    socrus   scihcet    Herimani    Suevorum   ducis,    in    hisdem    finibus   conmorans, 


2  20  Countess  Adelaide  and  her  husbands 

into  Lorraine.  He  captured  Bar  on  the  14th  November  1037,  but 
next  day  he  was  attacked  by  Gozelo  Duke  of  Lorraine.  After  a  long 
struggle,  he  was  put  to  rout,  and  himself  perished  on  the  field.  With 
him  the  rivalry  of  French  feudatories  for  intervention  in  Italy  came  to 
an  end.  Their  desire  to  play  a  part  in  world,  as  apart  from  French 
local,  politics  was  to  be  gratified  later  by  the  Crusades  ^ 

The  only  reward  Bertha  seems  to  have  claimed  was  the  confirma- 
tion of  the  possessions  of  the  Abbey  of  S.  Giusto  di  Susa.  This  was 
duly  granted  on  the  29th  December  1037.  It  contained  an  emphatic 
clause  of  immunity,  unless  indeed  the  monks  supplied  one  themselves 
in  the  copy  we  possess.  By  it  all  jurisdiction  of  the  Marquess  over 
the  great  possessions  of  the  Abbey  was  shut  out'. 

The  further  operations  and  successes  of  Conrad  II  in  Italy  barely 
concern  the  present  subject.  Only  we  may  remark  the  pestilence  which 
destroyed  his  army  as  a  fighting  force  in  July  1038.  He  was  obliged  to 
leave  the  continuance  of  the  war  with  Aribert — which  had  been  sus- 
pended since  1037 — to  his  Italian  allies:  and  himself  with  his  Germans 
retreated  in  August  up  the  Brenner.  In  his  march  through  Lombardy 
there  died  of  the  epidemic  on  the  28th  July  his  step-son,  Herman 
Duke  of  Swabia  and  Marquess  of  Turin.  The  corpse  was  buried  at 
Trent ^.  It  is  clear  the  young  Duke  had  been  for  the  most  part  with 
his  step-father's  army.  Bertha  appears  as  ruling  the  mark  ;  and  in  the 
only  document  of  Adelaide's  which  may  have  been  issued  during  her 
marriage  to  him,  his  consent  to  her  grant,  usual  under  the  Salic  Law, 
does  not  occur  *.     No  doubt  he  did  not  reside  in  his  mark. 

The  war  against  Aribert  continued  under  the  direction  of  the 
Marquesses.  In  1039  they  raised  their  forces  and  proceeded  to  the 
siege  of  Milan.  The  Archbishop  on  his  side  armed  the  population. 
Popolo  and  cotitadini  appear  for  the  first  time  as  a  fighting  force ;  the 
caroccio  was  invented,  and  a  new  era  was  begun.  But  before  severe 
hostilities  commenced  came  the  news  of  Conrad's  death  on  the  4th  of 
June.  The  besiegers  knew  very  well  that  the  new  King,  the  pious 
Henry  III,  would  not  approve  the  war,  and  they  dispersed  in  dismay ^ 

legatorum  conventutn  rescivit,  missisque  suis  satellitibus  omnes  simul  comprehensos 
reique  veritatem  confessos  inperatori,  ubi  in  publico  conventu  eisdem...tribus  episcopis 
presentibus  consederat,  transmisit."  Other  accounts  give  some  more  details,  but  do 
not  mention  her. 

^  Bresslau,  op.  cit.  II.  22'i-']6. 

-  See  above,  p.  201,  n.  2.  The  earliest  copy  of  the  diploma  dates  from  c.  1180. 
It  is  tempting  to  think,  but  perhaps  improbable,  that  the  immunity  was  desired  by  the 
monks  in  consequence  of  the  break-up  of  the  Mark  at  Adelaide's  death  in  ioqi. 

^  See  Bresslau,  op.  cit.  pp.  316-9  and  p.  318,  n.  2,  for  authorities  on  Herman's 
death. 

•*  Cf.  above,  pp.  206  and  193,  n.  i.  ^  Bresslau,  op.  cit.  pp.  319-20. 


Marquess   Henry  and   Marquess  Oddo   I        221 

Bertha  does  not  seem  to  have  long  outlived  the  Emperor.  At  any 
rate  after  1040  we  have  no  more  documents  of  her\  As  for  Countess 
Adelaide,  within  a  few  years  she  married  again,  for  on  the  29th  January 
1042  we  find  her  wife  of  Marquess  Henry,  an  Aleramid  of  the  Mont- 
ferrat  line^  This  match  possibly  took  place  without  the  approval  of 
Henry  III ;  but  since  Henry  bore  the  title  of  Marquess  in  any  case  as 
an  Aleramid,  we  cannot  say  for  certain  whether  he  was  invested  with 
the  mark  of  Turin,  although  it  is  likely  to  be  the  case^ 

Nothing  of  special  interest  is  contained  in  the  records  of  this  time 
concerning  the  mark.  Marquess  Henry  appears  for  the  last  time  on  the 
ist  June  1044'';  and  he  probably  died  shortly  after,  leaving,  we  may 
be  fairly  sure,  no  issue.  The  third  marriage  of  Adelaide,  that  with 
Oddo  I  of  Savoy,  cannot  have  taken  place  later  than  1045*.  Oddo  I 
was  thereupon  invested  with  the  mark  of  Turin  by  Henry  HP.  In 
this  way  the  policy  initiated  by  Conrad  II  took  a  new  and  striking 
development.  By  this  marriage  and  investiture  the  approach  to  and 
the  control  of  the  two  chief  passes  of  the  Western  Alps,  the  Mont 
Cenis  and  the  Great  St  Bernard,  were  conferred  on  the  same  House, 
which  thus  became  one  of  the  most  powerful  of  the  Empire.  It  now 
remained  to  link  this  House  of  Savoy-Turin  firmly  to  the  imperial 
dynasty,  and,  as  we  shall  see,  Henry  III  and  his  advisers  did  not 
neglect  to  do  so. 

Little  enough  is  known  to  us  of  Oddo  I's  rule.  Adelaide  and  he 
took  under  their  patronage  the  foundation  of  S.  Lorenzo  d'Oulx  in  the 
valley  leading  to  the  Mont  Genevre^.  This  house  of  Canons  Regular, 
which  had  come  into  being  a  few  years  before^,  was  no  doubt  intended 
by  the  Marquess  and  his  wife  to  serve  the  same  uses  for  that  pass,  as 
did  S.  Giusto  and  Chiusa  for  the  Mont  Cenis.    But  it  was  not  endowed, 

^  Car.  Slip.  VIII.  [Cartario-Staffarda,  ii.,  B.S.S.S.  Xii.  p.  237)  is  dated  4  Nov. 
1037.     See  above,  p.  192,  n.  3. 

^  See  above,  p.  193. 

'  It  may  be  that  in  consequence  of  his  disapproving  the  marriage,  Henry  III 
granted  the  county  of  Bredolo  to  Peter,  Bishop  of  Asti,  and  extended  the  latter's 
circuit  of  jurisdiction  over  the  city  from  four  to  seven  miles'  radius,  on  the  26  Jan.  1041 
{Libro  z'erde...d'Asii,  11.,  B.S.S.S.  xxvi.  p.  217).  See  above,  p.  163,  and  n.  9.  It  is 
certainly  curious  that  about  the  same  time  Henry  III  granted  complete  immunity 
to  the  Abbey  of  Chiusa,  which  then  had  for  its  abbot  a  Bishop  Peter.  This  of  course 
diminished  the  area  of  Ardoinid  jurisdiction.     Cf.  below,  p.  252. 

•*  See  above,  p.  194. 

'  See  above,  pp.  205-7. 

'  From  105 1  he  appears  as  marchio,  which  was  certainly  not  his  Burgundian  title. 
See  above,  p.  194. 

^  See  above,  p.  195. 

*  See  Collino  in  Carte  d''Oulx,  B.S.S.S.  XLV.  pp.  vi  and  6-7.  The  canons 
existed  in   10 ';6. 


222  Countess  Adelaide  and  her  husbands 

like  them,  with  large  lands,  but  chiefly  with  tithes.  Perhaps  this  was 
partly  due  to  its  nature.  The  canons,  unlike  the  recluse  monks,  were 
intended  to  serve  as  parish-priests  in  the  valley. 

In  1055  the  Emperor  Henry  III  made  his  second  expedition  to 
Italy.  This  time  he  had  to  deal  with  the  House  of  Canossa.  Beatrice, 
widow  of  Marquess  Boniface,  had  remarried  Godfrey  Duke  of  Lor- 
raine, and  much  aroused  the  Emperor's  suspicions,  for  the  Duke  took 
control  of  his  step-children's  vast  inheritance.  However,  Beatrice  and 
her  surviving  child,  the  famous  Matilda  of  Tuscany,  were  placed  in 
honourable  captivity,  while  the  Duke  fled  to  Germany,  there  to  revolt. 
Henry  III  had  all  the  more  reason  to  favour  the  rivals  of  the  Canossans; 
and  to  take  care  of  their  loyalty  \  On  his  return  to  Germany,  he  spent 
the  Christmas  of  1055  at  Ziirich,  and  there  betrothed  his  child-son, 
Henry,  to  Bertha,  eldest  daughter  of  Marquess  Oddo  I  and  Adelaide  I 
Thus  the  House  of  Savoy  had  little  further  to  aspire  to  in  the  Empire. 
Two  more  such  alliances  were  to  be  made  in  the  next  twenty  years ; 
and  curiously  enough  the  ruin  of  the  mark  was  to  be  largely  due  to 
this  close  connection  with  the  imperial  House. 

Oddo  did  not  live  long  to  enjoy  his  greatness.  By  the  21st  May 
1060  he  was  dead^  By  Adelaide  he  left  five  children:  Peter  I,  the 
eldest,  who  succeeded  him  in  the  Mark ;  Amadeus  II ;  Oddo ;  Bertha, 
wife  of  Henry  IV ;  and  Adelaide,  who  was  the  second  wife  of  Rudolf 
of  Rheinfelden,  Duke  of  Swabia  and  Anti-Caesar.  The  latter's  hus- 
band had  been  invested  with  the  novel  Rectorate  of  the  Kingdom  of 
Burgundy  by  the  Empress  Agnes.  As  such,  he  would  stand  to  the 
local  Counts  in  much  the  same  position  as  a  German  Duke  towards  his 
subordinate  Counts.  Accordingly  we  do  find  him  leading  the  Burgundian 
vassals  of  the  Empire  in  war,  but  otherwise  no  trace  of  his  authority 
appears,  and  it  seems  most  unlikely  that  the  Counts  of  Savoy  were  in 
any  real  way  trammelled  by  it*.  However  this  may  be,  on  Oddo's 
death  Countess  Adelaide,  who  up  till  then  has  no  distinct  character  for 
us,  appears  at  last  as  real  ruler  of  the  mark  and  one  of  the  most 
remarkable  women  of  the  eleventh  century. 

^  Steindorff,  Heinrich  III,  11.  324-5. 

2  See  above,  p.  194  and  n.  4.  The  Emperor  took  the  bride  to  be  brought  up 
in  Germany.  Ann.  Altah.  niaj.  1066  (M.G.H.  Script,  xx.  817),  "sponsa...quam 
pater  ejus  (Henricus  III)  secum  adduxerat  novissime  regrediens  de  Italia." 

^  See  above,  p.  195. 

*  See  Jacob,  La  Royaume  de  Bourgogne,  pp.  65-74  ;  Kallmann,  Die  Beziehungen 
des  Konigreichs  Burgund  zii  Kaiser  und  Reich,  pp.  81-4,  considers  Rudolfs  powers 
only  extended  between  the  Jura  and  the  Alps,  where  he  can  be  shown  to  have  held 
alods.     But  against  this  view,  see  Carmen  de  Bella  Saxonico  [M.G.H.  Script,  xv. 

1230) : 

Hie  (Rodulfus)  et  in  arma  rapit  secum  quos  patna  misit 
Curia,  mille  manus  Ararim  Rhodanumque  bibentes. 


Peter  I    Marquess  of  Turin  223 

The  period  just  elapsed  had  not  only  importance  for  the  House  of 
Savoy,  as  we  have  seen,  in  placing  them  in  Piedmont ;  but  it  had 
importance,  because  it  saw  the  ripe  completion  of  the  policy  of  the 
Franconian  Emperors  with  regard  to  the  Western  Alps.  Now  on  both 
sides  of  the  range  and  dominating  its  approaches  was  seated  one 
of  the  greatest  vassals  of  the  Empire,  whose  family  interests  were 
carefully  intertwined  with  those  of  the  imperial  dynasty. 


Section  VI.     Countess  Adelaide  and  her  sons. 

From  the  quiet  days  of  the  Emperor  Henry  HI,  we  now  make  an 
abrupt  transition  to  the  commotions  of  his  successor's  reign.  Long 
before  Henry  IV  himself  took  any  part  in  the  affairs  of  North  Italy, 
Lombardy  was  in  turmoil  over  the  great  contentions  of  church-reform 
and  clerical  celibacy,  and  along  with  them,  acting  on  them  and  reacting 
from  them,  the  social  changes,  which  were  produced  by  the  growing 
prosperity  of  the  cities,  were  bringing  about  a  less  articulate,  but  no  less 
far-reaching  evolution.  The  trading  classes  were  aspiring  to  a  more 
definite  share  in  the  government  and  were  resenting  the  control  of  the 
nobles  and  the  way  in  which  the  latter  tended  to  consider  church-office 
as  their  hereditary  appanage.  The  weakness  of  the  central  government 
during  the  long  minority  of  the  King  of  the  Romans,  and  the  decay  of 
the  authority  of  the  local  holders  of  the  "  public  power,"  gave  oppor- 
tunity and  incentive  for  change,  while  church-schism  and  church-reform 
supplied  ever  fresh  occasion  and  motive  for  definite  action.  From  this 
city-phenomenon,  the  "rise  of  the  commune,"  Piedmont  lay  as  yet 
somewhat  aloof,  Asti  being  the  chief  town  affected  greatly  by  it ;  and 
consequently  we  find  Adelaide  of  Turin  playing  a  mediator's,  almost  an 
inconsistent,  part.  She  cautiously  furthers  ecclesiastical  reform ;  but 
she  is  a  stern  opponent  of  Asti's  autonomy.  Even  during  the  strife 
of  Empire  and  Papacy  she  deftly  pursues  her  middle  path,  and  what- 
ever changes  she  countenanced,  she  maintained  the  mark  of  Turin  in 
the  elder  traditions  of  government  till  her  death.  Like  Matilda  of 
Tuscany  she  was  the  last  of  a  race  of  marchional  dynasts. 

While  Countess  Adelaide  was  the  real  ruler  and  the  legal  possessor 
of  the  Ardoinid  demesnes,  the  formal  aspect  of  things  was  somewhat 
different.  Her  eldest  son,  Peter  I,  was  invested  with  the  mark  of 
Turin  by  January  1064^  and  he  remained  possessed  of  the  "public 

^  Car.  Reg.  CLX.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  22),  where  he  holds  in  July  1064  a 
placitum  in  the  county  of  Turin,  with  his  mother.  In  Jan.  1064  he  and  his  mother 
confirm  a  gift  to  Fruttuaria  (Car.  Sup.  xvi.).  It  is  true  that  the  charter  of  Secundus 
to  S.  Giusto  di  Susa,  29  Feb.  1064  {M.H.P.  Chart,  i.  603),  speaks  of  the  Abbey  as 


2  24  Countess  Adelaide  and  her  sons 

powers  "  therein  till  his  death.  Perhaps  Adelaide  herself  continued  to 
hold  the  comital  office  under  him  and  his  son-in-law  during  her  life- 
time (of.  above,  p.  140,  n.  i).  The  lot  of  the  Burgundian  domains  is 
more  obscure.  From  the  later  and  earlier  practice  of  the  Savoyards, 
we  should  expect  Peter  to  rule  alone,  his  brothers  being  given  mere 
appanages.  In  favour  of  this  view  we  note  that  Peter  was  Count  of 
Aostaand  apparently  sole  Count'.  Against  it  we  have  the  statement  (of 
course,  not  necessarily  very  accurate)  of  St  Peter  Damian  that  Adelaide's 
sons  possessed  a  great  part  of  Burgundy^.  Now  there  seems  to  be 
some  corroboration  of  this.  In  the  dispute  concerning  the  coinage  of 
Aiguebelle,  Adelaide  and  her  three  sons  act  together,  although  a  primacy 
is  reserved  for  Peter  P.  In  the  negotiations  with  Henry  IV  in  December 
to  January  1076-7,  only  Adelaide  and  Amadeus  take  part,  and  their 
wide  Burgundian  lands  are  expressly  mentioned ^  Amadeus  II,  how- 
ever, never  bears  for  certain  the  title  of  Count  in  his  brother's  life-time, 
and  the  latter  may  have  died  before  December  1076^  So  perhaps  we 
should  think  rather  of  an  exceptionally  large  endowment  of  lands,  than 
of  a  separate  dominion. 

Since  the  poUtics  of  Burgundy  and  Italy  are  sharply  distinguished 
in  these  early  years  of  Henry  IV,  we  may  take  them  separately.  To 
begin  with  Burgundy.  After  Oddo  I's  death,  the  mint  of  Aiguebelle 
was  revived  ;  again  Archbishop  Leger  of  Vienne  journeyed  to  Italy  to 
complain,  and  obtained  a  command  for  the  mint's  suppression.  But  soon 
the  coining  began  afresh;  and  there  ensued  long  negotiations.  In 
November  1066  or  1067  an  agreement  was  reached,  Adelaide  and  her 
sons  promising  that  no  coining  should  take  place  for  the  future®.     It 

"  constructum  infra  civitatem  Seusiam  de  sub  regimine  et  potestate  domne  Addalasie 
cometipse  et  filiorum  ejus":  but  this  refers  to  the  entail  of  the  advowson  of  the 
monastery  (see  above,  p.  154,  and  n.  4),  not  to  the  public  powers  over  the  city. 

^  See  above,  p.  53,  Car.  Reg.  cxx. 

2  See  above,  p.  189  and  n.  2. 

^  See  below,  n.  6,  "  Petrus  primogenitus." 

^  See  below,  pp.  ■237-9. 

*  See  below,  p.  241,  n.  3. 

^  Car.  jReg.  CLXXiii.  (Migne,  CXLIII.  pp.  1407-8  and  d'Achery,  Spicilegmm, 
Paris,  1723,  HI.  393).  Cf.  above,  p.  124.  "  Post  mortem  veio  ejus  insurrexerunt  et 
alii  latrones,  et  secuti  sunt  priores,  et  iterum  falsaverunt  earn  (monetam),  quousque 
predictus  archiepiscopus  Leodegarius  venit  in  Italiam  ad  praedictam  marchionissam 
Adeleidam.  Quae  similiter  ut  audivit,  ne  amplius  fieret  praecepit....Modo  autem 
ignorante  supradicta  domna  Adeleida  marchionissa,  alii  exorti  sunt  et  praedicta  mala 
sequuntur.  Sed  mediante  domno  Adraldo  Bremetensium  Abbate  et  Artaldo  ecclesiae 
nostrae  praeposito,  dimittuntur  supradicta  mala,  et  ne  amplius  fiant,  promittit  domna 
Adeleida  marchionissa  cum  filiis  suis  Petro  et  Amedeo  et  Oddone  Deo  et  S.  Mauricio 
in  manu  domni  Leodegarii...ut  in  tola  potestate  sua  Viennensis  moneta  amplius  non 
falsetur,  neque  fiat  neque  vera  neque  falsa  ilia  excepta  quae  in  Vieima  fuerit  facta... 


The  mint  of  Aiguebelle.      Loss  of  Oulx        225 

was,  however,  certainly  resumed,  perhaps  after  Leger's  death  in  1070, 
and  only  was  done  away  with  on  the  establishment  of  a  mint  at  Susa^ 
The  Archbishop  had  vainly  endeavoured  to  put  back  the  hands  of  the 
clock,  for  under  early  medieval  conditions  the  Mont  Cenis  high-road, 
like  others,  would  need  its  special  mint  at  the  border  of  Italy  and 
Burgundy. 

Our  other  information  concerns  one  serious  loss  and  a  partial  gain 
of  territory.  In  1057  Oddo  I  and  Adelaide  appear  as  sole  rulers  of  the 
upper  valley  of  the  Dora  Riparia  round  Oulx,  where  was  situated  the 
new-founded  provostry^.  But  in  1063  we  find  Guigues  I,  the  Old,  Count 
of  Albon  (or  by  an  anachronism,  the  Dauphin),  owning  land  in  Cesana^ 
We  can  hardly  doubt  that  this  fact  implies  dominion;  for  other  undated 
charters  of  Count  Guigues  show  him  confirming  the  Ulcian  Canons' 
lands  and  various  grants  to  them  in  the  district  and  disposing  of  tithes 
in  Cesana,  Oulx  and  Salbertrand*.  For  many  centuries  the  district 
between  Exilles  and  the  Mont  Genevre  was  lost  to  the  House  of  Savoy 
and  became  in  language  and  culture  a  part  of  the  Dauphine.  From  a 
military  point  of  view  the  loss  was  unfortunate,  but  the  greater  popu- 
larity of  the  Mont  Cenis  route  prevented  a  serious  loss  of  revenue. 
How  the  cession  occurred  we  have  no  evidence  to  say^     The  youth  of 

hoc  laudant  et  confirmant...Petrus  primogenitus  et  Amedeus  et  Oddo."  Dated 
"  II.  Kal.  Dec.  Luna  xvi.  feria  iv.  Heinrico  secundo  rage,  nondum  imperatore, 
Caesaris  et  imperatoris  filio,  hujus  domnae  marchionissae  genero."  We  may  note  the 
title  of  marchioness  given  to  Adelaide  in  this  Viennese  document.  No  doubt  she  was 
usually  called  so.  Manteyer,  Origines,  p.  413,  n.  i,  proposes  to  alter  the  barbarous 
"11.  Kal."  to  "  XI.  Kal."  I  have  not  been  able  to  find  in  the  document  "Indiction 
XII."  which  M.  de  Manteyer  corrects  to  "  Ind.  xv. "  Since  Henry  IV  only  married 
Adelaide's  daughter  in  June  1066  (see  below,  p.  ■231),  and  was  only  recognized  by 
Leger  about  the  same  time  (see  Jacob,  Boiirgogne,  pp.  75-7),  I  incline  to  correct  either 
to  "  III.  Kal.  Dec,"  i.e.  Wednesday,  29  Nov.  1066,  which  makes  the  document's  moon 
three  days  out,  or  to  "  xi.  Kal.  Dec,"  i.e.  Wednesday,  21  Nov.  1067,  which  makes 
the  moon  six  or  seven  days  out.  If  we  keep  to  II.  Kal.  (see  Grundriss  der  Geschichts- 
wissenschaft,  i.  297)  we  have  30  Nov.  1065 ;  but  the  moon  is  then  twelve  days  out, 
and  the  marriage  of  Henry  IV  and  Bertha  had  not  taken  place. 

1  That  the  treaty  was  ineffectual  is  shown  by  three  references  to  the  money  of 
Aiguebelle  in  Grenoblese  charters,  one  of  mi;  see  Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  ecc. 
pp.   36-9. 

^  See  above,  p.  195  and  pp.  221-2. 

•■'  Carte... d^ Oulx,  B.S.S.S.  XLV.  p.  18.  The  date  in  the  copies  of  charter  is  1053, 
but  the  indiction  is  i.,  which  agrees  with  1063,  and  in  X053  Ulric  could  not  have  been 
provost,  since  he  succeeded  Gerard,  who  was  still  provost  in  1058  {id.  p.  10).  So,  too, 
Oddo  and  Adelaide  were  still  ruling  at  Oulx  in  1057. 

*  Carle... d' Oulx,  B.S.S.S.  XLV.  pp.  12,  17,  29  ;  cf.  below,  p.  227. 

5  Prof.  Gabotto,  VAbazia...di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  i.  94  n.  (following  Count  di 
Vesme,  /  conli  di  Verona,  Nuovo  Arch.  Veneto  1897)  thinks  that  Guigues  the  Old 
claimed  the  district  in  right  of  his  wife  Adelaide,  an  Ardoinid.  But  there  is  nothing 
but  the  name  to  show  she  is  an  Ardoinid  ;  and  the  great  Adelaide  is  the  first  Ardoinid 

P.  o.  IS 


2  26  Countess  Adelaide  and  her  sons 

Oddo's  sons  may  have  led  Guigues  the  Old  to  begin  the  long  feud 
which  was  not  to  end  till  the  fourteenth  century. 

The  acquisition  of  lands  made  by  Adelaide  at  this  time  was  the 
permanent  temporal  dominion  of  the  Abbey  of  St  Maurice  and  the  county 
of  Chablais.  As  we  have  seen  above  ^,  the  last  Abbot  for  many  years  is 
Burchard,  who  last  appears  in  1069.  In  1070  ample  proof  is  given  of 
Adelaide's  rule  there  by  the  following  anecdote.  Anno,  Archbishop 
of  Cologne  and  Arch-chancellor  of  Italy,  was  returning  to  his  diocese 
from  Rome  in  1070.  He  took  the  Great  St  Bernard  route,  and  as  we 
might  expect  from  an  active  man  of  affairs,  transacted  a  little  business 
on  the  way.  This  was  to  obtain  from  Countess  Adelaide  a  mandate  to 
the  canons  of  St  Maurice,  which  ordered  them  to  give  the  Archbishop 
some  of  the  precious  relics  of  the  Theban  Legion.  St  Maurice  of 
course  could  not  rival  the  Roman  catacombs,  but  it  had  a  great  reputa- 
tion from  the  number  of  the  martyred  soldiers.  In  fact  the  export  of 
relics  had  proceeded  to  such  an  extent  as  to  arouse  a  great  deal  of  local 
opposition ;  and  the  Archbishop  found  it  best,  after  feeing  the  canons 
heavily,  to  enter  the  church  and  to  disinter  the  spoil  at  dead  of  night. 
He  was  successful  in  finding  a  whole  body  (St  Innocent)  and  a  skull 
(St  Vitalis) ;  and,  decamping  at  a  very  early  hour  next  morning,  got 
safe  away.  On  Ascension  Day  (16  May)  he  entered  Cologne  in  triumph, 
and  enshrined  his  new  patrons  in  sumptuous  fashion,  at  which  I  believe 
and  at  him  posterity  may  still  wonder'. 

Although  Adelaide  ruled  beyond  the  Alps,  however,  her  home  and 
interests  were  in  Italy.  Only  once  we  find  her  north  of  the  encircling 
mountains^  With  regard  to  Italy,  therefore,  we  may  hope  to  find  out 
her  policy,  if  she  had  one,  during  the  many  stirring  years  of  her  rule 
from  1060  to  1 09 1.  One  aspect  of  it  is  easy  to  deal  with.  She  con- 
tinued the  resettlement  of  the  Alpine  valleys.  Not  to  mention  her 
gifts  to  Oulx,  both  before  and  after  its  loss*,  and  other  monasteries, 
such  as  Cavour,  Caramagna  and  S.  Solutore  of  Turin,  we  find  her 
founding  an  abbey  of  her  own.  This  was  Sta  Maria  di  Pinerolo,  to 
which  she  granted  its  first  charter  on  the  8th  September  1064.  Fol- 
lowing her  father's  example  she  dowered  it  with  the  entire  valley  of 
Fenestrelle  and  its  branches  from  Pinerolo  upwards,  together  with  other 

we  know  of  to  bear  the  name.  Ulric-Manfred  gave  to  his  daughters  no  names  which 
we  know  of  in  the  family  before  his  time. 

1  See  above,  pp.  73  and  1-22-3. 

2  Cf.  for  the  tale  Vita  Annonis  {M.G.H.  Script,  xi.  480).  The  words  relative  to 
Adelaide  are :  "  (Anno)  precibus  exegit  ab  Adelheida,  tunc  Alpium  Cottiarum 
marchionissa,  quatenus  Thebeae  legionis  reliquias  ejus  auctoritatis  jussu  mereretur  ab 
Agaunensibus  ;  suae  quippe  ditioni  locus  cedebat." 

^  See  below,  pp.  237-8. 

■*  See  above,  pp.  221-2,  and  also  Car.  Reg.  CLXXV.  {Cart.  d'Oulx,  B.S.S.S.  XLV. 
31),  ccx.  (id.  48). 


Adelaide  and  church-reform  227 

lands,  yielding  perhaps  a  more  immediate  income,  in  the  counties  of 
Turin  and  Aurade^  Thus  a  third  great  valley  was  handed  over  to 
the  monks'  care  and  gentler  rule.  They  soon,  however  (probably  at 
Adelaide's  death),  lost  the  upper  Fenestrelle  region  to  the  Guigonids, 
whom,  as  Dauphins,  we  find  later  in  possession  of  Pragelato  and 
Mentouilles'. 

It  is  a  far  more  difficult  matter  to  trace  out  the  policy  of  Adelaide 
with  regard  to  the  great  movements  of  her  day,  that  is,  to  the  en- 
forcement of  clerical  ceUbacy  and  to  the  strife  between  Emperor  and 
Pope.  In  so  putting  the  problem  perhaps  a  solution  is  being  suggested. 
The  inference  is  that  Adelaide  looked  on  these  matters  from  a  practical 
point  of  view.  She  may  have  approved  of  clerical  celibacy,  as  a  reform, 
but  not  of  violent  measures  to  bring  it  about,  nor  of  the  use  of  it  in 
connection  with  the  communal  movement  to  break  up  her  own  power 
in  the  mark.  In  like  manner,  while  possibly  in  no  way  anti-papal, 
she  would  be  none  the  more  inclined  to  see  her  imperial  kinsman 
lose  power  or  crown.  With  these  suggestions  made,  we  may  proceed 
to  examine  the  details,  so  far  as  they  concern  Adelaide  and  her 
dominions. 

The  beginning  of  the  disturbance  in  Piedmont  bears  marks  of  a 
mainly  secular  origin.  In  Milan  the  attack  of  the  reformers,  Ariald 
and  Landulf,  with  their  mob  of  artisans,  was  directed  against  the 
married  and  simoniacal  priests  of  the  city.  It  was  for  a  celibate 
and  unworldly  clergy  that  the  Patarines — as  the  reformers  were  called 
— of  Milan  were  striving ^  Some  may  have  been  anxious  to  enforce 
a  genuine  Papal  supremacy  over  the  almost  independent  see  of 
St  Ambrose,  but  there  would  not  be  many  Milanese  to  take  that  view. 
Archbishop  Guido  was  despised  perhaps,  but  there  was  no  movement 
against  his  secular  powers ;  in  fact  he  did  not  possess  the  publica 
potestas  in  Milan.  But  at  Asti,  as  at  Pavia,  the  citizens  rose  against 
the  Bishop  imposed  upon  them  by  the  Emperor,  here  doubtless  on 
Adelaide's  nomination.  It  would  not  be  right  to  separate  the  two  risings 
completely,  for  in  both  the  fact  that  the  priestly  offices  and  endowments 
were  mainly  held  by  connections  of  the  capitanei  and  valvassors,  who 
were  not  always  easy  to  distinguish  in  practical  life  from  their  secular 
kinsmen,  was  a  grievance  and  an  incitement  to  riotous  reform  for  the 
traders  and  artisans.  Still  at  Asti  the  immediate  aspiration  seems  to 
have  been  for  something  like  self-government  on  the  part  of  all  classes 

1  See  above,  p.  190,  Car.  Reg.  CLXi.  (Carlario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  Ii.  p.  323) 
CXCi.  {id.  p.  342),  with  gift  of  rest  of  Fenestrelle  valley  in  1078,  c.xcvii.  {id.  p.  345), 
cxcviil.  {id.  p.  348),  with  gift  of  Pinerolo  itself  in  1078. 

2  See  above,  p.  225,  and  cf.  Valbonnais,  Hist,  de  Dauphitii,  il.  467. 
^  Meyer  v.  Knonau,  Heinrich  IV,  I.  pp.  58-71. 

15—2 


228  Countess  Adelaide  and  her  sons 

of  citizens.  As  the  sequel  shows,  the  Bishop  was  hand  in  glove  with 
Countess  Adelaide,  who  held  the  remnants  of  the  comital  power  in  the 
contado;  and  between  them  the  citizens  were  completely  dominated. 
In  any  case,  in  spite  of  the  privileges  of  toll-freedom  they  obtained  from 
Conrad \  about  1061  the  Astigians  revolted  and  drove  out  their  Bishop 
Girelm.  A  large  party  of  the  nobles  must  have  been  concerned  in 
the  rising,  since  Asti  kept  her  Bishop  at  bay  year  after  year.  In  1065  ^ 
we  find  Adelaide  making  a  considerable  grant  to  Bishop  Girelm, 
perhaps  in  compensation  for  his  losses,  perhaps  in  return  for  the  fief 
she  held  of  him^  Finally  on  the  23rd  April  1070  the  warlike  Countess 
captured  and  burnt  the  recalcitrant  city  with  much  slaughter  and  re- 
stored the  rightful  Bishop,  turning  out  the  usurper  elected  by  the 
Astigians.  The  rightful  Bishop,  however,  was  no  longer  Girelm,  who 
died  c.  1066^,  but  his  successor,  a  certain  Ingo,  young,  active  and 
crafty ^  The  see  had  suffered  at  the  hands  of  its  protectors  as  well  as  at 
those  of  its  foes.  We  find  that  Adelaide  had  entered  into  the  posses- 
sion of  the  Abbey  of  S.  Dalmazzo-Pedone  and  of  the  arch-priestdom  of 
Levaldigi  in  Aurade,  and  that  a  dispute  was  going  on  between  her  and 
Bishop  Ingo  concerning  the  important  riverside  land  between  Annone 
and  Rocca  d'Arazzo®.  In  addition,  Adelaide  held  as  a  benefice  from 
the  see  all  its  possessions  in  the  curtis  of  Bredolo,  which  we  may, 
perhaps,  regard  as  including  its  claims  to  the  comital  power  in  that 
district.  If  the  grant  of  the  county  of  Bredolo  to  the  see  of  Asti  by 
Henry  III  in  1041  was  really  a  sign  of  displeasure  with  Adelaide,  the 

^  See  above,  p.  219. 

2  Car.  Reg.  clxvi.  (Le  piii  antiche  carte... d' Asti,  B.S.S.S.  xxviii.  p.  343.  The 
lands  given  had  been  purchased  by  Adelaide. 

^  That  of  Bredolo  curtis,  see  below.  But  the  evidence  for  it  dates  only  from 
1089. 

^  Except  for  the  date  of  the  capture  of  Asti  the  chronology  is  obscure.  The 
authorities  are,  besides  Ann.  Altah.  maj.  (see  below,  p.  229,  n.  3) :  Ogger.  Alfier., 
Cronica  (Sella,  Cod.  Ast.  de  Malabayla,  11.  p.  58),  "a.d.  1070  vim.  Kal.  Mad. 
civitas  Astensis  capta  fuit  a  comitissa  Alaxia,"  and  Amulf.  Mediol.  [M.G.H.  Script, 
viii.  18)  :  "The  Pavese  are  at  war  with  Milan  (1061).  Per  idem  tempus,  ad  instar 
Papiensium,  Astenses  quoque  datum  sibi  reprobaverunt  episcopum  ;  sed  prudentia 
comitissae  Adeleidae,  militaris  admodum  dominae,  post  longi  temporis  conflictus 
incensa  tandem  urbe,  contempto  altero  quem  elegerant,  priorem  suscipiunt."  Thus 
Girelm  seems  to  be  restored.  Now  Girelm  appears  as  Bishop  in  1054,  i059'  ^"^ 
1065.  His  successor,  Ingo,  appears  first  in  1072.  But,  since  the  trouble  with  the 
Pope  re  Ingo's  consecration  appears  to  have  occurred  1066-7,  we  must  suppose  an 
error  in  Arnulf,  and  that  Girelm  died  c.  1066,  having  never  obtained  restoration  (see 
below). 

*  See  Savio,  Gli  antichi  vescovi,  pp.  140-2  and  above,  p.  214,  n.  2. 

®  Car.  Reg.  ccxv.  {Libra  verde...d' Asti,  11.  B.S.S.S.  xxvi.  p.  67).  There  was 
also  a  dispute  between  Marquess  Peter  I  and  Ingo  over  La  Vezza  (where?),  which 
they  settled. 


Adelaide  subjugates  Asti  229 

acquisition  of  this  benefice  may  have  been  her  method  of  recovering 
her  lost  powers  under  another  name^ 

The  papal  curia,  however,  could  not  hold  aloof  from  these  spirited 
proceedings,  and  its  wrath  was  aroused  by  Ingo  seeking  consecration 
from  Guido  Archbishop  of  Milan.  Now  Guido  in  1066-7  stood  excom- 
municate. His  submission  to  Pope  Nicholas  II  on  the  points  of  issue 
in  1059,  which  had  been  particularly  shared  by  the  Bishops  of  Ade- 
laide's sphere  of  influence,  Cunibert  of  Turin,  Benzo  of  Alba  and 
Girelm  of  Asti,  had  come  to  an  end  in  the  renewed  Patarine  agitation 
at  Milan  from  1065  on.  It  was  not  that  Guido  had  followed  the  anti- 
Pope  Cadalus  in  the  years  1061  to  1064.  Only  Benzo  of  Alba  did 
that,  and  for  some  reason  or  other  managed  to  keep  his  see  in  spite 
of  all.  But  Guido  was  himself  defied  and  accused  of  simony  by  the 
Patarine  leaders,  supported  as  they  were  by  the  Roman  Curia.  In 
1066  Pope  Alexander  II  excommunicated  and  suspended  him  and  was 
not  unnaturally  indignant  with  Adelaide  for  her  recognition  of  his 
archiepiscopal  powers  through  Ingo's  consecration.  A  sharp  letter  of 
reproof  was  sent  refusing  to  acknowledge  the  new  Bishop-.  But  pre- 
sumably means  were  found  to  pacify  the  Pope's  indignation,  since  Ingo 
appears  as  Bishop  of  Asti  from  1072  to  1079.  Adelaide  was  herself 
obliged  to  make  a  journey  to  Rome  about  the  matter,  but  the  benevolent 
Pope  declared  he  did  not  know  what  penance  to  fix,  and  nothing  was 
done,  save  perhaps  an  undertaking  of  the  Countess  to  support  the 
reform  movement  in  her  dominions^ 

^  Car.  Reg.  ccxv.  (see  p.  228,  n.  6).  See  above,  p.  163  and  n.  9,  and  p.  221, 
n.  3.  Cf.  on  this  Astigian  history,  Prof.  Gabotto,  Asti  e  la  politica  sabauda  in 
Italia,  B.S.S.S.  xviii.  pp.  5-9. 

^  Alexander  II's  letter  (Lowenfeld,  Epist.  Rom.  Pont.  p.  56)  is  as  follows  : 
"Adalaisiae  comitissae.  Wido  Mediolanensis  et  pro  criminibus  quae  comisit  et 
pro  superbia  qua  se  elevare  contra  apostolicam  sedem  presumpsit,  sancta  synodo  id 
decernente,  ab  omni  episcopali  officio  suspensus  est;  et  quemadmodum  Astensis 
electus  vel  esse  vel  dici  possit  episcopus,  cum  a  non  episcopo  minime  sit  benedictus, 
sed  potius  maledictus,  invenire  non  possumus  ;  aut  enim,  quod  fieri  non  potest, 
apostolicae  sedis  justa  et  legitima  auctoritas  adnullabitur,  aut  ipse  electus  pro  hac 
causa  inter  episcopos  non  numerabitur."  Possibly  this  is  the  origin  of  Adelaide's 
journey  to  Rome,  of  which  the  Ann.  Altah.  niaj.  have  an  anecdotic  account.  See 
below,  n.  3.  The  difficulty  lies  in  the  date  of  Ingo's  consecration.  Evidently 
Alexander  II's  letter  belongs  to  the  years  1066-7  when  Guido  was  suspended  from 
office.  Subsequently  Guido  resigned  his  see  without  the  Pope's  leave,  attempted  to 
take  it  again,  and  was  in  captivity  by  107 1  :  but  he  would  hardly  be  applied  to  fo 
consecration  during  this  second  eclipse.  Yet  we  need  not  separate  Alexander's 
reproof  re  the  consecration  from  Adelaide's  journey  to  Rome,  even  if  that  occurred 
after  the  capture  of  Asti  in  1070  ;  since  to  obtain  a  valid  consecration  for  Ingo  would 
not  be  practical  politics  till  the  city  had  submitted. 

^  Ann.  Altahenses  majores,  1069  {M.G.H.  Script.  X.X.  821):  "Temporibus  ipsis 
(c.  October)  in  Italia  contigit  hujusmodi  res  quaedam  miserabilis.     Adelheit,  socrus 


230  Countess  Adelaide  and  her  sons 

Already,  steps  had  been  taken  to  stir  up  her  zeal  in  this  regard  by 
St  Peter  Damian.  He  may  have  made  her  acquaintance  about  1063 
on  his  journey  over  the  Great  St  Bernard  and  by  Fruttuaria  on  his 
French  legation  of  that  year\  although  it  is  possible,  seeing  that 
Adelaide's  eldest  son  bore  the  name,  strange  in  the  family,  of  Peter, 
that  the  Saint  might  be  an  old  friend  and  the  boy's  godfather'.  In  any 
case  about  the  spring  of  1064^  he  directed  a  long  tractate  to  the 
Countess,  whom  he  describes,  with  that  monkish  sweetness  which  to  us 
seems  so  unbecoming,  as  Duchess  and  Marchioness  of  the  Cottian  Alps 
and  most  excellent  Duke.  His  object  is  to  follow  up  a  similar  writing 
he  had  already  addressed  to  Cunibert  Bishop  of  Turin,  who  in  1064 
was  a  strong  supporter  of  Alexander  II  against  the  anti-pope  Cadalus 

regis,  Laudasanis  irata  fuit ;  quapropter,  vastata  provincia,  ipsam  civitatem  Laudam 
cum  magna  multitudine  obsedit,  quamque  expugnatam  igne  fecit  succendi,  et  portis 
obstrusis  nullum  patiebatur  egredi.  Igitur  monasteria  ecclesiae  cunctaque  urbis 
moenia  igne  sunt  concremata  ;  quo  incendio  virorum,  mulierum  ac  parvulomm  perisse 
feruntur  multa  milia.  Hujus  reatus  causa  post  haec  Romam  adiit,  sed  papa  non 
indicia  penitentia  earn  rediie  jussit.  Fatebatur  enim  se  nescire,  si  qua  vel  quails  in 
tot  et  tantis  criminibus  deberet  indici  penitentia  vel  subsequi  indulgentia.  Sed  quia 
eundem  virum  novimus  pium  ac  mitum  fuisse,  nequaquam  credimus  hoc  eum  dixisse, 
si  cor  illius  perspexisset  digne  contritum  et  humiliatum  fuisse."  That  this  account 
refers  to  the  capture  of  Asti  is  pretty  clear.  We  know  of  the  latter's  storm  in  1070. 
Adelaide  had  absolutely  nothing  to  do  with  Lodi  or  central  Lombardy.  No  other 
mention  of  a  capture  of  Lodi  by  her  in  1069  is  known,  and  the  silence  of  the  Milanese 
writers,  Arnulf  and  Lambert,  is  inexplicable,  if  the  event  happened.  The  Annalist,  who 
writes  c.  1075  (see  Giesebrecht,  loc.  cit.  p.  779),  might  well  confuse  two  lesser  cities. 
Unfortunately  the  error  makes  one  doubtful  of  his  details,  and  I  have  only  ventured 
to  take  Adelaide's  journey  to  Rome  into  the  text.  The  rapid  revival  and  new  revolt 
of  Asti  is  a  proof  of  some  exaggeration. 

1  Cf.  Migne,  CXLiv.  107-8,  Henschenii  Comment,  and  CXLV.  863  and  869-70 
(Iter  Gallicum),  and  B.  Petri  Damiani...^/^ra  omnia,  Paris  1663,  Vol.  III.  p.  iS^, 
Opu?culum  XVIII.  In  conversation  with  St  Peter  Damian  Adelaide  excused  her  virile 
power  in  the  world  by  a  reference  to  the  wondrous  virtue  sometimes  hidden  in  con- 
temptible herbs  (op.  cit.  in.  p.  i8r).  The  Saint  mentions  that  only  one  ecclesiastic 
in  her  domains  complained  of  Adelaide,  and  that  merely  because  she  had  given  him 
nothing.  This  grumbler  was  Bishop  of  Aosta  [pp.  cit.  in.  p.  182).:  "  De  ecclesiis 
autem  quae  tibi  adjacent  admonerem,  etc. ;  sed  cum  te  praesente,  plures  nobiscum 
colloquerentur  episcopi  monasteriorumque  rectores,  nullus  eorum  fuit  qui  a  te  vel  a 
tuis  procuratoribus  ullam  sibi  molestiam  conquereretur  inferri,  praeter  Augustensem 
dumtaxat  episcopum,  qui  tamen  non  a  te  sibi  de  suis  aliquid  imminutum,  sed  con- 
questus  est  potius  ecclesiae  suae  nihil  ex  tua  liberalitate  collatum." 

-  But  Baron  Carutti  {Regesta,  p.  371)  argues  that  St  Peter  Damian  could  not  have 
been  in  Piedmont  before  1057.  I^  that  case  the  notion  of  his  being  godfather  to 
Peter  I,  which  has  been  upheld  by  Count  Gerbaix-Sonnaz  {Siudi  storici,  etc.  i.),  is 
impossible.     Was  Bishop  Peter  of  Asti  the  godfather? 

^  Neukirch,  Das  Leben  des  h.  Petrus  Damiani,  p.  103  for  date.  An  abstract  is 
given  Car.  Reg.  CLVii.  For  the  whole  see  Beati  Petri  Damiani... o/^ra  ofnnia,  Paris 
1663,  Vol.  III.  p.  181,  Opusculum  XVIII.  Diss.  in. 


Marriages  of  Bertha  and  Peter  I  231 

of  Parma.  In  both  he  urges  strong  measures  against  the  married 
priests,  who  appear  to  have  formed  the  bulk  of  the  Lombard  clergy. 
Cunibert  is  to  proceed  against  the  priests  themselves;  the  thrice-married 
Adelaide,  whom  the  Saint  reassures  on  that  very  subject  of  her  repeated 
marriages',  is  to  employ  her  secular  arm,  on  the  unfortunate  women, 
their  wives,  whom  the  monk  so  misnames.  He  recommends  her  to  be 
cautious  and  not  vindictive  in  her  action.  The  controversy,  of  course, 
as  to  what  had  been  the  best  choice  for  Europe  then,  is  an  impossible 
one  to  solve.  We  only  know  what  happened,  and  cannot  really  con- 
trast with  it  an  imaginary  history.  But  if  the  progress  of  medieval 
European  civilization  did  in  fact  demand  an  unfettered  clergy,  we  may 
yet  say  that  it  was  bought  with  blood  and  tears. 

It  is  probably  to  be  regarded  as  a  sign  of  her  good  understanding 
with  the  Papacy,  that  we  find  Adelaide's  second  son,  Amadeus,  taking 
an  oath  at  St  Peter's  tomb,  along  with  other  Burgundian  nobles,  to 
protect  the  Holy  See.  This  happened  in  Alexander  IPs  time  and 
probably  in  io66^  Interesting  as  evidence  of  Adelaide's  attitude,  the 
fact  is,  however,  of  trifling  importance. 

During  these  years  of  dexterous  government,  family  greatness  and 
family  troubles  had  gone  hand  in  hand  for  Adelaide.  In  1065  Henry  IV 
had  come  of  age ;  in  June  1066  he  solemnly  wedded  Adelaide's 
daughter.  Bertha,  at  Tribur,  possibly  because  it  was  an  easy  place  for 
the  bride's  relatives  to  reach.  Bertha  had  already  been  crowned  Queen 
at  Wiirzburg  in  the  same  year^  Three  other  marriages  completed  the 
links  which  bound  the  House  of  Savoy-Turin  to  the  Empire.  Marquess 
Peter  I  married  in  1064  at  the  latest  the  Empress-Dowager's  niece, 
Agnes,  daughter  of  Duke  William  VII  of  Aquitaine'*.  Adelaide,  the 
Countess'  second  daughter,  in  one  of  the  years  following,  married 
Henry  IV's  widowed  brother-in-law,  Rudolf  of  Rheinfelden,  Duke  of 
Swabia*.  Finally,  Adelaide's  sister,  Immula,  had  remarried;  this  time, 
her  husband  was  Ekbert  I  of  Brunswick,  Margrave  of  Meissen**.     Of 


^  See  above,  p.  109.  Of  course  Adelaide's  marriages  would  be  largely  political 
and  to  safeguard  the  succession  in  the  mark. 

-  Hellmann,  Die  Grafen  v.  Savoyen,  p.  20,  n.  4.  In  1066  Richard  of  Capua  was 
threatening  Rome  :  and  in  1068  some  of  the  chief  Burgundian  magnates  were  forming 
an  alliance  on  the  Pope's  side. 

^  Lamp.  Hersf.  1066  (ed.  Holder- Egger,  pp.  103-4)  :  Ann.  Allah,  maj.  {M.G.H. 
Script.  XX.  817)  for  the  Coronation  at  Wiirzburg.  See  also  Meyer  v.  Knonau, 
Heinrich  IV,  I.  526,  n.  Oi,  for  full  evidence  and  discussion. 

*  She  appears  after  Peter's  death  in  1078  (Car.  Reg.  CXCVin.  Cartario  di  Pinerolo, 
B.S.S.S.  II.  p.  348)  as  "filia  q.  Guillelmi  Pictaviensis  comitis  et  relicta  olim  nobilis- 
simi  marchionis  Petri."     For  the  date  of  their  marriage,  see  above,  pp.  205-6. 

'"  The  date  is  uncertain.     See  Meyer  v.  Knonau,  Hein?-ich  IV,  i.  527  n. 

*  Ann.  Saxo  1067  {M.G.H.  Script.  Vi.  695).     Cf.  above,  p.  217,  n.  i. 


232  Countess  Adelaide  and  her  sons 

Peter's  marriage  we  know  nothing  save  that  a  daughter,  Agnes,  was 
born  of  it'.  The  other  three  were  unhappy.  Immula  was  only  saved 
by  Ekbert's  death  in  1068  from  repudiation'-^.  She  appears  in  107 1 
still  at  the  German  court^;  but  from  the  beginning  of  1074  we  find  her 
in  Piedmont  disposing  of  lands  which  formed  her  share  of  the  Ardoinid 
inheritance.  At  last  she  became  a  nun  and  died  on  the  21st  January 
1078''.  Her  German  heirs  seem  to  have  abandoned  all  claims  on  Pied- 
mont. At  least  we  hear  of  none  made  by  them.  As  for  the  younger 
Adelaide,  her  husband  Rudolf  actually  repudiated  her  in  1069  and  only 
took  her  back  two  years  after  on  Papal  intervention ^  Bertha's  lot  at 
first  was  the  most  wretched  of  all.  King  Henry,  who  had  only  married 
her  in  mere  form  and  on  persuasion,  held  her  in  utter  distaste.  A 
public  estrangement  set  in  after  the  summer  of  1068,  and  we  hear  of 
aspersions  on  the  young  man's  morals.  Then  he  resolved  to  divorce 
his  wife,  if  possible.  In  June  1069  he  mooted  the  question  in  a  great 
council  at  Worms,  giving  incompatibihty  as  a  plea  ;  and  the  Pope  was 
applied  to  for  a  decision.  Accordingly  at  Frankfort  in  October  a  synod 
was  held  to  decide  the  matter.  Thither  came  St  Peter  Damian,  as 
Papal  Legate,  and  his  message  was  severe.  It  threatened  spiritual 
penalties  and  the  refusal  of  the  imperial  crown,  if  Henry  did  not  take 
back  his  wife.  At  the  same  time  the  German  princes  besought  the 
King  to  give  up  his  plan,  especially  warning  him  of  the  danger  the 
realm  would  incur  if  the  Queen's  relatives  should  revolt,  in  wrath  at  her 
ill-treatment**.      Henry    listened    to   reason   and   took   back   his   wife. 

^  She  first  appears  byname  in  1089  (Car.  Reg.  ccxv.  Libro  verde...d'Asti,  11., 
B.S.S.S.  XXVI.  p.  67).  But  she  must  have  married  in  1080:  see  above,  pp.  205-6. 
The  second  daughter,  Alice,  is  an  invention  of  genealogists,  see  below,  p.  255, 
n.  6. 

^  Lampert.  Hersfeld.  1068  (ed.  Holder-Egger,  p.  105) :  "cui  tamen  (sci.  Immulae) 
ipse  (Egbertus)  paucis  diebus  antequam  vita  excederet  repudium  scribere  cogitaverat 
(and  marry  Margrave  Otto's  widow) ;  sed  mors  opportune  interveniens  nefarios  conatus 
ejus  intercepit." 

3  Ann.  Saxo  [Af.G.H.  Script,  vi.  698). 

*  List  of  her  documents,  Car.  Reg.  CLXXVii.  (Carte  antiche  di  Caratnagna,  B.S.S.S. 
XV.  p.  78),  Car.  Stip.  xx.  {Cartario  di  Cavour,  B.S.S.S.  III.  i,  p.  32),  Carlario  di 
Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  11.  p.  332,  all  of  1074;  Carte  del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  III.  2,  p.  185, 
Car.  Reg.  CLXXXV.  {Cartario  di  Pi7terolo,  p.  339),  both  of  1077.  Day  of  her  death 
from  Necrol.  S.  Andreae  Taurin.  {M.H.P.  Script.  III.  195,  Car.  Reg.  CLXXXVIII.)  : 
the  year  from  Car.  Reg.  cxci.  {Cartario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  Ii.  p.  342). 

^  Ann.  Weissemburg,  1069  and  1071  {M.G.H.  Script,  iii.  71).  She  was  falsely 
accused  of  adultery. 

^  Lampert.  Hersfeld.  (ed.  Holder-Egger,  p.  no).  The  princes' warning  was  "  ne 
parentibus  reginae  causam  defectionis  et  justam  turbandae  reipublicae  occasionem 
daret :  qui  si  viri  essent,  cum  armis  et  opibus  plurimum  possent,  tantam  filiae  suae 
contumeliam  procul  dubio  insigni  aliquo  facinore  expiaturi  essent."  This  gives  a 
good  idea  of  the  power  of  the  House  of  Savoy-Turin. 


Bishop  Cunibert  and  Chiusa  233 

Strangely  enough  their  union  soon  became  a  happy  one,  and  she  was 
his  constant  companion  till  her  death  in  io88\  She  had  brought  him 
a  rich  dowry.  Among  the  curiae  which  belonged  to  the  royal  demesne 
at  this  time  we  find  Turin,  2000  marks  from  Susa,  1000  marks  from 
Avigliana,  500  from  Piossasco,  Revello,  200  marks  from  Saluzzo,  the 
same  from  Albenga,  8  servitia  from  Torcelli,  Cavallermaggiore  and 
Canelli  on  the  Belbo,  10  sen'itia  from  Annone  and  so  on.  Most  of 
these  are  demonstrably  Ardoinid  lands.  Adelaide  and  Oddo  had  of 
course  to  pay  for  the  honour  of  the  imperial  alliance^. 

While  the  great  poUtics  of  Empire  and  Church  thus  came  under 
Adelaide's  purview,  she  was  also  employed  with  the  local  concerns  of 
two  Piedmontese  monasteries,  one  of  which  had,  so  far  as  we  know, 
little  importance  for  her;  but  the  other  played  a  considerable  part  in 
the  wider  affairs  of  the  day.  The  less  important  may  be  taken 
first.  The  Abbey  of  S.  Benigno  di  Fruttuaria,  lying  between  Turin  and 
Ivrea,  and  favoured  by  the  Empress  Agnes,  had  long  been  on  uneasy 
terms  with  its  parent  house  St  Benigne  de  Dijon.  In  his  above-quoted 
letter  (c.  1064)  we  find  St  Peter  Damian  pressing  Adelaide  to  defend 
Fruttuaria^.  In  1073  Gregory  VII,  then  newly  elected  Pope,  also 
recommended  the  Abbey  to  her'*.  So  the  controversy  dragged  on  till 
in  May  1080  a  partial  settlement  was  reached  at  Turin,  at  which 
Cardinal  Herman,  and  some  Bishops,  as  well  as  Adelaide,  Agnes  her 
daughter-in-law,  and  Marquess  F'rederick,  her  grandson-in-law,  assisted. 
The  Pope's  decision  next  year  was  to  be  finaP. 

This  was  really  a  small  matter.  But  the  quarrel  of  the  Abbey  of 
S.  Michele  della  Chiusa  with  Bishop  Cunibert  of  Turin  was  somewhat 
involved  with  the  struggle  concerning  clerical  celibacy.  Cunibert,  like 
most  of  the  Piedmontese  Bishops,  was  a  slow  enforcer  of  the  canons  on 

'  See  for  these  events,  Meyer  v.  Knonau,  Hcinrich  IV,  i.  612-7,  624-7. 

-  Edited  by  Weiland  (M.G.H.  Constit.  i.  646),  who  shows  it  should  be  dated 
between  1057  ^^^  1065.  Professor  Gabotto  {Carte  del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  in.  2, 
p.  169,  which  also  see  for  identifications)  considers  it  to  date  before  the  year  966,  on 
the  ground  that  Turin,  Revello,  and  Susa  had  long  ceased  to  be  royal  cortes  in  1065, 
and  that  Montiglio,  which  is  also  mentioned,  came  to  the  Counts  of  Vercelli  before 
976  and  was  confirmed  to  them  in  988.  But  there  is  the  betrothal  of  Henry  IV  to 
Bertha  to  account  for  the  first  three,  and  as  to  Montiglio,  taken  by  itself,  it  may  easily 
have  come  back  to  the  imperial  domain  in  1014-20  in  the  great  confiscations. 
Besides,  the  initial  clause  "  Iste  sunt  curie  que  pertinent  ad  mensam  regis  Romani  (Gabotto 
corrects  '  Romanorum  ')  "  shows  that  the  document  must  date  from  later  than  Henry  H, 
with  whom  (c.  1007)  that  title  first  appears,  and  probably  from  Henry  IV  at  earliest, 
when  the  title  becomes  frequent.  (See  Bryce,  Holy  Koinan  Empire,  1904,  p.  531, 
and  above,  p.  168,  n.  4.) 

•*  Car.  Reg.  CLvn.     See  above,  p.  230. 

*  Car.  Reg.  CLXXXI.  {Reg.  Greg.   VII,  lib.  I.  ep.  37). 

"  Car.  Reg.  cciil.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  19). 


234  Countess  Adelaide  and  her  sons 

this  point ;  but,  as  was  natural,  the  monks  of  the  various  monasteries 
were  ardent  supporters  of  the  reform.  Thus  they  were  not  compatible 
neighbours  to  start  with  :  and,  since  the  Bishop  claimed  jurisdiction 
over  the  monks,  which  they  denied  on  the  strength  of  their  miraculous 
church \  the  two  parties  were  provided  with  an  important  subject  of 
quarrel,  seeing  that  their  suffrage  for  an  Abbot  of  Chiusa  was  not  likely 
to  fall  on  the  same  man.  The  vacancy  came  in  1066  or  1067;  and  the 
monks  knew  the  value  of  a  fait  acco^npli.  Before  the  dead  Abbot  was 
buried,  they  were  electing  his  successor,  and  their  choice  fell  on  a 
strong  man,  Benedict  II,  one  of  those  spirits,  who  expressed  the  essence 
of  monasticism,  bred  as  he  was  in  the  cloister.  Cunibert  flew  into  a 
towering  rage  at  their  disregard  of  his  claims  of  patronage,  and  refused 
to  ordain  the  new  Abbot,  the  first  Italian  prelate  who  for  many  years 
had  been  appointed  apart  from  royal  or  other  secular  interference.  The 
Turinese,  it  is  interesting  to  note,  quite  sympathized  with  their  Bishop 
and  maltreated  the  monks'  envoy.  It  is  to  be  remembered  also  that 
the  monks  of  these  border-monasteries  were  largely,  if  not  mainly, 
Transalpine  immigrants.  The  Lombards,  laments  the  historian  of 
Chiusa,  were  too  much  endowed  with  worldly  wisdom  and  too  intent  on 
the  gains  of  this  present  life  to  adopt  the  monastic  vocation^.  Their 
supineness  left  the  Abbey  to  be  peopled  with  foreigners,  and,  although 
the  effect  could  easily  be  exaggerated,  a  little  estranged  from  the  popu- 
lation round.  However,  Benedict  was  not  going  to  give  way ;  he 
proceeded  to  Rome  to  invoke  Pope  Alexander  II's  aid,  and  Bishop 
Cunibert  followed  him  thither  to  resist.  Alexander  took  the  Abbot's 
side,  consecrated  him  and  effected  a  specious  reconciliation.  An  uneasy 
state  of  things  now  began  and  went  on  for  years  ^  There  were  con- 
stant bickerings,  but  no  decisive  actions,  till  Gregory  VII  succeeded 
the  gentler  Alexander  in  June  1073.  Before  the  close  of  the  year  he 
was  urging  Countess  Adelaide  to  protect  the  Abbey  from  the  grave 
oppression  under  which  it  was  labouring"*.    In  December  1074,  Cunibert 

^  See  above,  p.  179.  They  had  also  an  ample  grant  of  immunity  from  Henry  III 
c.  1040  (see  above,  p.  223,  n.  3,  and  below,  p.  252),  which  included  the  right  to  elect 
their  Abbot.  The  question  was  further  complicated  by  the  Bishop's  claim  [Reg. 
Greg.  VII,  lib.  VI.  ep.6)  that  the  monastery  was  built  on  allodial  land  of  the  see  of  Turin, 
and  therefore,  I  infer,  that  the  Abbot  owed  him  homage  as  a  vassal,  as  well  as  ecclesi- 
astical obedience.  This  no  doubt  accounts  for  the  particularity  with  which  Willelm. 
Monachus  describes  the  purchase  of  the  Abbey  land  from  Marquess  Ardoin  V  (see 
above,  p.  180)  and,  alas,  in  view  of  his  lack  of  good  faith,  throws  doubt  on  that 
narrative.  But  the  Abbey  clearly  won  in  the  sequel  on  this  point,  and  since 
Gregory  VII  does  not  seem  to  have  pressed  hardly  on  the  Bishop,  I  think  the  latter's 
contention  cannot  have  been  sound. 

2  Willelm.  Monach.  Vi.  Be^tedicti  S.  Mich.  CI.  Abb.  (M.ff.P.  Script,  iii.  263). 

3  Willelm.  Monach.  Vi.  Benedicti  S.  Mich.  CI.  Abb.  [M.H.P.  Script,  in.  289). 
^  Car.  Reg.  CLXXXI.  {Reg.  Greg.   VII,  lib.  i.  ep.  37). 


Henry   IV's  journey  to  Canossa  235 

is  summoned  to  Rome  for  the  following  Lent,  there  to  meet  the  Abbot 
and  hear  the  Pope's  decision  \  He  was  obstinate  at  first,  and  was 
promptly  suspended.  Then  appearing  at  Rome  he  made  a  show  of 
submission,  only  to  break  his  promises  immediately  he  was  safe  at 
Turin.  Accordingly  in  April  he  was  resummoned  to  Rome,  this  time 
for  Martinmas ;  the  Pope  also  threatened  to  free  the  Abbey  from  his 
jurisdiction,  a  circumstance  which  refutes  the  claims  of  the  monks  to 
complete  independence'^. 

That  Cunibert  had  some  right  on  his  side  was  no  doubt  one  cause 
of  Gregory's  patience ;  but  a  more  powerful  reason,  which  also  by  the 
irony  of  events  lay  at  the  back  of  the  whole  quarrel,  is  to  be  found  in 
the  progress  of  the  movement  against  the  married  clergy,  simony  and 
lay  intervention  in  church-government.  In  Lent  1074  Gregory  had 
held  his  first  council  and  had  sternly  insisted  on  the  execution  of  the 
decrees  against  the  married  or  simoniac  priests.  In  Lent  1075  his 
second  synod  was  strengthening  these  canons  and  adding  the  prohibi- 
tion of  lay  interference  and  of  the  lay  investiture  of  Bishops  and  Abbots. 
If  we  remember  the  political  difficulties  which  accompanied  this  eccle- 
siastical activity,  such  as  the  danger  from  Robert  Guiscard  and  his 
Normans  in  Apulia,  against  whom  in  February  1074  Gregory  was 
appealing  for  help  to  some  Transalpine  magnates,  including  Amadeus 
the  son  of  Adelaide  of  Turin  herself^,  it  then  becomes  obvious  how 
cautious  the  Pope  would  have  to  be  with  the  Lombard  Bishops,  who 
could  aid  or  hinder  him  so  much. 

Cunibert  on  his  side  made  an  excellent  passive  resister,  and  did  not 
tempt  the  Pope  too  far.  But  the  aspect  of  affairs  was  soon  to  alter. 
In  April  1075  the  Patarines  were  overthrown  in  Milan,  and  their  leader 
Arlembald  killed.  The  Milanese  forthwith  obtained  a  new  Archbishop 
Tedald  from  Henry  IV.  This  action  of  the  King  was  not  only  in 
contravention  of  the  recent  decrees  of  Gregory,  but  it  disregarded  the 
election  of  Archbishop  Atto  which  had  taken  place  in  1072  and  had 
received  the  Papal  sanction.  Nor  did  it  stand  alone.  Henry  IV  regu- 
larly filled  up  German  vacancies  and  invested  his  nominees  according 
to  ancient  custom ;  he  retained  his  excommunicated  councillors  and  so 
forth.  In  the  winter  of  1075  Gregory  was  already  threatening  the  King's 
excommunication  and  deposition  in  case  of  continued  disobedience  to 
the  Apostolic  see.  At  this  unprecedented  claim  of  authority  Henry's 
rage  was  unbounded  and  in  its  expression  barbaric.  In  January  1076 
he  summoned  a  council  of  the  German  realm  at  Worms.  The  Bishops 
assembled   there,   declared   the   Pope  deposed,    some  willingly,    some 

^  Heg.  Greg.   VII,  lib.  II.  ep.  33  and  52  a. 

*  Reg.  Greg.  VII,  lib.  II.  ep.  69. 

*  See  above,  p.  231,  and  n.  2. 


236  Countess  Adelaide  and  her  sons 

unwillingly,  and  a  letter,  compiled  somewhat  in  the  style  of  an  appeal 
to  single  combat,  was  dispatched  to  inform  Gregory  of  the  fact.  A 
further  Italian  assembly  was  then  held  at  Piacenza  and  the  Lombard 
Bishops,  including  Cunibert,  joined  in  declaring  Gregory  no  Pope. 
Thus  the  contest,  that  was  to  last  so  many  years,  was  begun.  Gregory 
at  once  responded  by  excommunicating  the  King  and  absolving  his 
subjects  from  their  oaths  of  allegiance  ;  and  although  at  the  end  of 
March,  a  counter-excommunication  of  the  Pope  was  issued  by  a  synod 
of  the  Lombard  Bishops,  led  by  Guibert  of  Ravenna,  it  was  soon  seen 
which  decree  was  likely  to  take  effect.  King  Henry  had  forgotten  how 
weakly  founded  his  power  was  in  Germany.  The  German  princes  were 
rapidly  falling  away  from  him,  and  the  Saxons,  his  old  foes,  were  again 
in  revolt.  By  October  1076  the  movement  against  him  had  so  pro- 
gressed that  an  assembly  could  be  held  at  Tribur  under  the  presidency 
of  the  Papal  legates.  Henry  was  compelled  to  submit  to  their  pressure. 
He  acknowledged  the  Pope ;  and  it  was  decreed  that  Gregory  VH 
should  be  begged  to  come  to  Germany  and  hold  a  Diet  early  in  the 
following  year.  If  Henry  was  then  still  unabsolved,  a  new  King  should 
be  chosen  in  his  place.  Meanwhile  he  was  to  wait,  deprived  of 
authority,  at  Speyer.  Henry  at  first  moved  to  Speyer,  dejected  enough; 
but  during  his  stay  there  the  news  came  that  Gregory  had  decided  to 
come  to  Germany  and  was  refusing  to  absolve  him  at  once  on  his 
apphcation.  The  future  loomed  only  too  clear  before  the  King,  a 
hostile  Diet,  his  own  deposition  and  the  election  of  an  anti-king.  The 
rebel  princes  and  the  Pope  seemed  to  be  closing  their  ranks  against 
him.  If  only  he  could  see  the  Pope  first  and  negotiate  a  peace  with 
him  !  But  his  opponents,  who  numbered  amongst  them  the  three 
southern  Dukes,  Rudolf  of  Swabia,  Adelaide's  other  son-in-law,  Welf  of 
Bavaria,  and  Berthold  of  Carinthia,  were  quite  aware  of  this  possibility, 
and  of  the  fact  that  most  of  Lombardy  was  staunch  to  Henry  and  little 
moved  by  his  excommunication.  There  he  could  at  once  be  formidable. 
So  they  held  the  defiles  of  the  Alps  strongly  from  the  Brenner  to  the 
Great  St  Bernard  and  made  his  passage  of  them  impossible \  But 
there  was  a  gap  in  their  defences ;  and  Henry  with  soldier-like  instinct 
seized  the   chance  it  offered  him.     His   predecessors'   acquisition   of 


1  Lampert.  Hersfeld.  (ed.  H older- Egger,  p.  iS^},  "  duces... omnes  vias  omnesque 
aditus  qui  ad  Italiam  mittunt,  quos  vulgato  nomine  clusas  vocant,  appositis  custodibus 
anticipasse,  ut  nulla  illic  ei  copia  transeundi  fieret."  The  term  c/usa  seems  specially 
applied  to  the  narrows  of  the  defiles  which  gave  access  to  the  passes  :  e.g.  Chiusa  in 
Val  di  Susa.  One  wonders  where  Duke  Rudolf  of  Swabia  held  the  Savoyard  Great 
St  Bernard  closed.  But  probably  his  lands  included  enough  to  cut  off  the  approaches 
to  the  eastern  Lake  of  Geneva,  and  once  Henry  had  reached  Geneva,  it  was  just  as 
easy  to  go  by  the  Mont  Cenis. 


Henry  IV's  journey  to  Canossa  237 

Burgundy  and  careful  nursing  of  their  relations  with  the  House  of 
Savoy-Turin  could  now  be  made  to  show  their  value.  A  few  days 
before  Christmas,  with  wife  and  child  and  a  small  company,  he  hurried 
to  Besangon,  the  capital  of  his  maternal  kindred,  the  Counts  of  "Franche 
Comte."^  They  received  him  well ;  but  he  barely  halted  for  Christmas 
and  then  rode  on  to  cross  the  Rhone  at  Geneva.  It  may  be  he  had 
sent  letters  from  Speyer ;  it  may  be  that  Abbot  Hugh  of  Cluny,  then 
just  arrived  in  Italy  to  intercede  for  him,  had  been  entrusted  with  a 
message.  In  either  case,  Henry  not  only  sped  southward  unopposed 
through  the  Genevois  into  Savoy  proper,  but  at  the  Novalesan  priory 
of  Coise",  between  Montmelian  and  Aiguebelle,  he  met  his  wife's 
kindred,  Adelaide  of  Turin  and  her  son  Amadeus.  It  is  the  only 
instance  we  know  of  the  Countess  being  north  of  the  Alps,  and,  as 
her  residence  there  was  naturally  more  unlikely  in  mid-winter  than  at 
other  times,  we  may  presume  the  indomitable  "  Duke  of  the  Cottian 
Alps"  had  crossed  the  mountains  for  the  purpose,  in  spite  of  the  dangers 
of  the  winter.  She  knew  well  what  she  gained  by  holding  the  keys  of 
Italy,  both  sides  of  the  passes.  A  hasty  bargaining  then  took  place. 
Adelaide  first  demanded  of  her  son-in-law  five  Italian  bishoprics  as 
price  of  his  passage.  We  wonder  what  this  phrase  implies,  till  we 
remember  that  in  Burgundy  the  House  of  Savoy  had  obtained  the 
practical  suzerainty  of  the  Bishops  in  their  territories  ^  Thus  we  may 
suppose  that  Adelaide  demanded  the  right  to  invest  and  receive  fealty 
from  the  Bishops  of  Turin,  Asti,  Alba,  Albenga  and  perhaps  Ivreai 
Here  the  King,  however,  was  firm  against  his  hard-hearted  kinswoman. 
He  knew  it  was  to  her  interest  to  sell  him  the  passage :  his  Queen  was 
her  daughter  ;  the  great  position  of  her  house  was  due  to  its  shrewd 
imperial  alliance.  Thus  she  was  prevailed  on  to  take  less  at  last. 
Some  rich  Burgundian  district,  the  chronicler  says,  was  handed  over  to 


^  The  Empress  Agnes'  mother  was  a  daughter  of  the  great  Otto-William  who 
played  such  a  part  under  Rudolf  III  of  Burgundy. 

2  Lamp.  Hersfeld.  (ed.  Holder- Egger,  p.  285),  "Cum  in  locum  qui  Ciuis  (Cuus) 
dicitur  venisset  obviam  habuit  socrum  suam  filiumque  ejus  Amedeum  nomine,  quorum 
illis  regionibus  et  auctoritas  clarissima  et  possessiones  amplissimae  et  nomen  celeber- 
rimum  erat."  Thus  they  received  Henry  in  their  own  lands.  The  name  Coise  (Latin 
Costa,  Coisia)  would  easily  become  Ciuis  or  Cuus  (which  represent  the  true  reading) 
to  a  German  who  only  heard  the  word,  and  we  are  thus  saved  from  correcting  the  text. 
See  my  note,  Engl.  Hist.  Rev.  xxv.  p.  520. 

^  See  above,  pp.  85,  90-1,  97-8. 

■*  These  are  the  dioceses  either  in  or  nearest  to  Adelaide's  lands.  The  text  of 
Lampert  {loc.  cit.)  goes  on  :  "  Hi  venientem  honorifice  susceperunt.  Transitum  tamen 
per  terminos  suos  alias  ei  concedere  nolebant,  nisi  quinque  Italiae  episcopatus, 
possessionibus  suis  contiguos,  eis  redimendi  itineris  precium  traderet.  Durum  hoc 
nimis  atque  intolerabile  omnibus  regis  consiliariis  visum  est."     See  next  note. 


238  Countess  Adelaide  and  her  sons 

her  and  her  sons\  There  the  Empire  had  Httle  to  lose  by  the  increased 
power  of  Savoy.  What  that  province  was,  is  an  almost  insoluble  ques- 
tion. We  have  to  find  a  fertile  district  which  the  Savoyards  do  not 
otherwise  gain  and  which  Henry  had  to  give.  Now  he  had  little  to 
give  there,  save  rights  to  homage  or  exemption  from  the  authority  of 
rival  Counts  in  their  pagi.  Perhaps  North  Bugey,  outside  the  county 
of  Belley^  is  the  best  choice ;  but  I  prefer  to  think  that  it  was  really  a 
complete  grant  of  immunity  for  the  Savoyard  possessions  scattered 
outside  their  own  comitatus.  Whatever  the  price  was,  it  was  given  and 
taken  :  and  now  the  pressing  need  for  the  whole  party  was  to  cross  the 
Mont  Cenis,  so  that  the  King  could  reach  Gregory  before  any  new 
development  occurred.  It  was  a  severe  task  which  lay  before  them. 
That  year  the  winter  had  been  of  extraordinary  severity.  The  Po  itself 
was  frozen  over  and  the  Mont  Cenis  was  deep  in  ice  and  snow  far 
beyond  the  usual  measure.  None  the  less  guides  were  hired  to  show 
the  best  route  and  roughly  prepare  it  for  the  travellers.  Up  through  the 
woods  on  the  western  side  the  way  was  made  with  difficulty,  but  the 
real  task  lay  in  the  sharp  descent  from  the  Col  to  the  Priory  of  Novalesa 
on  the  Italian  side.  Those  who  know  even  the  improved  mule-track, 
which  has  now  been  supplanted  by  the  new  road  and  new  route,  can 
guess  what  must  have  been  the  lot  of  Henry  and  his  troop,  who 
traversed  it  or  its  general  direction  in  one  of  the  fiercest  of  winters 
known.  Staggering,  scrambling,  sliding,  even  rolling,  the  unwilling 
mountaineers  worked  their  way  down.  The  Queen  and  her  ladies  were 
placed  on  sledges  of  ox-skin  and  so  dragged  by  the  guides,  who,  we 
may  note,  do  not  seem  to  have  been  put  much  out  by  the  state  of  the 
pass.     The  wretched  horses,  too,  were  either  placed  in  sledges,  or  had 

^  Lamp.  Hersf.  loc.  cit.  "  Sed  cum  ei  inevitabilis  incumberet  necessitas  quoquo 
posset  pacto  redimendi  itineris,  et  illi  nee  jure  propinquitatis  nee  tantae  calamitatis 
miseratione  quicquam  moverentur,  multo  labore  et  tempore  in  hac  deliberatione  in- 
sumpto,  vix  et  aegre  tandem  impetratum  est,  ut  provintiam  quandam  Burgundiae,  bonis 
omnibus  locupletissimam,  concedendi  transitus  mercedem  dignarentur  accipere." 

2  See  above,  pp.  77-8.  There  is  also  the  possibility  of  a  grant  of  Queen  Ermen- 
garde's  inheritance  (see  above,  pp.  14-15,  80,  87-8,  96).  Thus  Annecy  would  be 
the  price  of  the  Counts  of  the  Genevois  for  Henry's  passage  through  their  lands.  But 
in  view  of  the  uncertainty  attaching  to  the  acquisition  of  the  Queen's  lands  by  Savoy,  I 
should  prefer  North  Bugey  for  a  definite  district,  which  at  some  time  or  another  passed  to 
Savoy,  and  for  which  no  homage  was  due  to  other  Counts.  There  is  also  Tarentaise,  the 
county  of  which  passed  from  the  archbishops  (together  with  the  suzerainty  over  the 
latter)  to  Savoy  at  some  time  (see  above,  p.  99),  but  here  we  have  the  family  legend 
that  it  was  acquired  by  Humbert  II.  But  the  governing  factor  is  that  Henry  had  not 
much  to  give  in  Burgundy  except  exemptions  and  homages.  Thus  probably  the  grant 
concerned  older  territory  of  Savoy.  Lampert  need  not  have  been  very  well-informed 
on  these  diplomatic  arrangements.  See  for  various  opinions,  Meyer  v.  Knonau,  op. 
cit.  I.  749,  and  n.  6;  also  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  24,  and  Jacob,  Bourgogne,  pp.  146- 


Henry  IV's  journey  to  Canossa  239 

their  feet  tied  and  then  were  hauled  along.     Few,  we  are  told,  reached 
the  level  unhurt'. 

Once  in  the  Lombard  plain  Henry  hastened  to  VerceUi  and  then 
to  Pavia.  In  streamed  his  Lombard  vassals.  Marquesses  and  Bishops 
together,  and  he  was  speedily  at  the  head  of  a  respectable  force  of 
Italians,  who  looked  on  a  papal  excommunication  in  a  dryer  light 
than  did  the  Ultramontanes.  Pope  Gregory,  who  had  already  reached 
Mantua  in  his  journey  north,  now  hastily  withdrew  to  the  almost  im- 
pregnable castle  of  Canossa,  where  his  great  ally,  the  heiress  of  the 
fabulously  wide  lands  of  the  Canossan  House,  Countess  Matilda, 
received  him.  Henry's  Lombard  supporters  were  eager  to  move  to 
the  attack,  but  the  King's  object  was  different.  His  determination 
was  to  get  absolution  and  return  to  Germany.  Reasons  of  state  are 
obvious.  His  real  power  lay  in  Germany.  At  that  time  Lombardy 
with  its  depleted  royal  demesne  could  add  but  little  strength  to  him. 
Public  opinion,  across  the  Alps  especially,  had  to  be  reckoned  with. 
The  event  of  war  was  doubtful  at  best ;  but  his  present  appearance  in 
force  might  increase  Gregory's  leniency.  Then  his  Savoyard  kinsmen 
might  not  support  him  far  on  the  way,  and  they  were  his  most  powerful 
friends.  Adelaide  was  eager  in  negotiating  his  submission.  So  it  is 
little  wonder  he  continued  that  course  once  begun.  However  it  was, 
he  marched  towards  Canossa  and  then  negotiated  through  Matilda, 
Adelaide,  Abbot  Hugh  of  Cluny,  Amadeus,  Marquess  Azzo  the  Otber- 
tine,  and  others  as  intercessors.  Then  he  hurried  to  Canossa  himself 
and  forced  the  Pope's  hand  by  the  famous  three  days'  penance  in  the 
snow  outside  the  castle.  The  humiliation  did  its  work  at  any  rate ; 
and  Henry  was  not  a  man  to  realize  the  irremediable  degradation  of 
the  sacrosanct  majesty  of  the  Empire.  On  the  28th  January  1077  the 
Pope  received  him  again  into  the  Church.  The  conditions,  of  which 
Adelaide  was  one  guarantor,  were  light;    Henry  was  to  remedy  the 

^  Lamp.  Hersf.  loc.  cit.  Cf.  Meyer  v.  Knonau,  op.  cit.  i.  750-2,  for  a  defence  of 
Lampert.  The  details  of  Lampert's  account  seem  to  me,  after  going  over  the  old 
track,  much  in  his  favour.  E.g.  the  dangers  began  with  a  sort  of  surprise  on  the 
descent.  The  drop  begins  quite  suddenly  at  La  Gran  Croce.  The  old  route  works 
round  a  tract  of  marshy  ground  (where  it  is  now  artificially  made,  and  must  have  been 
once  much  harder),  crosses  the  new  road  and  descends  to  Ferrera.  Then  there  is 
another  sharp  drop  to  the  delicious  valley  of  Novalesa.  Especially  we  may  notice 
that  the  native  guides  were  little  embarrassed.  It  was  the  travellers  who  were  baffled 
by  the  unaccustomed  steep  frozen  snowdrifts.  What  Lampert  does  not  bring  out, 
perhaps,  is  that  the  dangerous  parts  to  the  ordinary  traveller  were  quite  short,  the  drop 
to  the  level  Novalesa  valley  being  steep.  Further,  the  transport  by  sledges,  glissade 
a  la  ramasse,  a  kind  of  tobogganing,  was  a  speciality  of  the  Mont  Cenis  route.  See 
Mr  Coolidge,  The  Alps  in  Nature  and  History,  pp.  165-6.  The  narrative,  in  fact, 
seems  founded  on  chat  of  members  of  the  retinue.  This  would  be  quite  consistent 
with  Lampert's  haziness  on  the  diplomatic  bargain. 


240  Countess  Adelaide  and  her  sons 

grievances  of  the  German  princes  according  to  Gregory's  award,  and 
was  to  assure  the  Pope's  safety,  if  he  should  judge  it  fit  to  cross  the 
Alps.  The  other  grounds  of  quarrel  were  left  in  the  background. 
Perhaps  Gregory  underrated  his  rival's  power  and  importance  as  an 
obstacle  after  what  had  passed. 

But  events  would  not  stand  still  at  the  bidding  of  either  King 
or  Pope.  The  Lombard  bishops  and  nobles  were  indignant  at  the 
reconciliation.  A  Papal  legate  was  seized  and  imprisoned  by  Bishop 
Denis  of  Piacenza.  Then  Henry  could  not  see  without  alarm  that 
Milan  again  went  over  to  the  Patarine  side,  and  that  the  Pope  declined 
to  authorize  his  coronation  as  King  of  Italy  at  Pavia.  On  his  side  he 
could  not  give  the  promised  safe-conduct  to  Gregory  for  his  German 
progress,  all  the  more  important  as  the  rebellious  princes  were  quite 
unpacified.  In  this  strained  state  of  affairs  came  the  election  of  Duke 
Rudolf  of  Swabia  as  anti-king  by  Henry's  opponents  on  the  15th  March 

1077,  and  Gregory  thereat  adopted  an  attitude  of  neutrality,  which 
could  not  be  called  a  friendly  attitude  towards  Henry.  The  King  at 
once  resolved  to  return  to  Germany  in  order  to  carry  on  the  war  against 
the  anti-Caesar.  He  effected  his  purpose  by  the  eastern  Carinthian 
passes  and  by  mid-April  was  already  in  Bavarian  With  him  the  main 
stream  of  events,  with  which  for  a  moment  our  Piedmontese  rivulet 
has  been  united,  turns  back  to  Germany.  Adelaide,  whose  sons-in-law 
thus  led  the  two  factions,  seems  to  have  subsided  into  something  like 
neutrality.  For  all  that,  she  did  not  interfere  with,  perhaps  she  aided, 
the  proceedings  of  the  anti-reforming  Bishop  Cunibert  of  Turin. 

Since  the  breach  between  the  Lombard  Bishops  and  the  Pope  in 
March  1076,  that  prelate  had  become  much  more  active  in  his  per- 
secution of  the  Chiusan  monks.  He  first  tried  by  intrigues  to  gain 
them  over  and  persuade  them  to  proceed  to  a  new  election.  That 
method  failing,  he  ravaged  their  lands ;   and  finally,  early  it  seems  in 

1078,  he  decided  to  eject  Abbot  Benedict  II  by  force.  No  doubt  he 
was  further  provoked  by  the  zeal  and  success  with  which  the  Abbot 
upheld  Gregory  and  the  reformers'  cause  in  Piedmont.  His  own  power 
was  insufficient  for  the  task,  but  he  succeeded  in  obtaining  the  alliance 
of  Marquess  Peter  I,  Adelaide's  eldest  son.  The  two,  accordingly, 
marched  upon  the  Monte  Pirchiriano  with  a  strong  force.  The  doors 
were  broken  down  and  the  Abbot  commanded  to  depart.  Whether  he 
actually  withdrew  further  than  the  church  is  not  clear,  but  he  passed 
the  night  in  prayer  and  praise.  Meantime  the  triumphant  evil-doers 
held  high  revel  in  the  refectory.  We  may  presume  that  the  abbey's 
cellar  and  larder  were  laid  under  contribution,  for  all  night  long  they 

^  See  for  the  general  history,  Meyer  v.  Knonau,  op.  cit.  especially  li.  pp.  630-1, 
729-43,  747-88  and  III.  pp.  3-21,  and  cf.  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  pp.  -23-5. 


Death  of  Marquess  Peter  I  241 

gorged  and  drank.  But  with  daybreak  a  strange  thing  happened.  Im- 
pelled, says  our  informant,  who  appears  to  have  practised  the  abstemious 
rule  with  single-hearted  zeal,  impelled  by  angelic  power,  the  marauders 
rose  from  their  debauch  in  total  oblivion  of  their  own  intentions.  Hastily 
they  left  the  sacred  place,  nothing  to  anyone  did  they  say,  but  slid  and 
tottered  down  the  steep  descent. 

Peter,  it  seems,  was  anxious  now  to  consider  his  part  performed, 
and  the  thing  done  with ;  but  Bishop  Cunibert,  on  recovering  his 
accustomed  lucidity  of  thought,  urged  him  on  to  repeat  the  experiment. 
Again  they  marched  up  to  the  Abbey ;  and  this  time  Benedict  was 
really  driven  out  and  a  garrison  left  in  charge.  The  Abbot  withdrew 
to  the  neighbouring  village  of  S.  Antonino  di  Susa.  He  did  not,  how- 
ever, despair.  One  evening,  with  a  small  band,  we  are  told,  he  suddenly 
returned  and  at  his  approach  the  sacrilegious  soldiery  took  to  flight'.  In 
the  same  year  Cunibert,  who,  we  may  notice,  was  now  again  on  friendly 
terms  with  Pope  Gregory,  submitted  at  last  to  the  latter's  arbitration, 
and  the  long  quarrel  was  peaceably  settled '^ 

The  Abbot's  companions  on  that  evening  may  have  been  more 
numerous  and  better-armed  than  the  chronicler  gives  us  to  conceive; 
but  no  doubt  the  main  reason  of  his  facile  return  was  the  death  of 
Marquess  Peter,  which  occurred  about  three  months  after  the  outrage 
on  the  9th  August  1078^.  His  death  involves  a  question  of  succession, 
which  was  perhaps  as  difficult  to  solve  then  as  it  is  now.  For  he  left 
behind  him  only  a  young  daughter,  Agnes ;  and  there  was  the  problem 
whether  she  or  her  uncle  Amadeus  should  succeed.  With  regard  to 
the  Burgundian  domains  there  was  probably  little  difficulty.  The  later 
and  apparently  the  earlier^  Savoyard  succession  was  always  in  the  male 

1  Willelm.  Monach.  Fi.  Benedicti  S.  Mich.  CI.  Abb..,  M.H.P.  Script.  III.  290-91, 
"Chunibertus  nihilominus  cum  Petro  marchione  conjurat  ut...abbate  a  monasterio 
ejecto  alium  sibi...praeponere  liceat.  Nee  mora,  et  ecce  uterque  multo  milite  stipatus 
ad  sanctum  locum  properat,  etc.  etc." 

^  Reg.  Greg.  VII,  lib.  vi.  ep.  6.  Clearly  the  Bishop's  feudal  claims  were  post- 
poned indefinitely. 

*  id.  "  Petrus  autem  marchio...post  trium  mensium  spatium,  angelica,  ut  credimus, 
ultione  percussus,  vitam  male  finivit."  The  date  of  the  month  is  given  in  the  Necrology 
of  S.  Salvatore,  Turin,  with  the  misreading  Malchio  for  Alarchio  (Car.  Reg.  CXCVI.). 
See  Padre  Savio,  I  primi  conti  di  Savoia  (Misc.  stor.  ital.  xxvi.),  pp.  464-5,  who 
points  out  this  is  to  be  preferred  to  the  supposed  date  (29  June)  derived  from  the 
Necrology  of  S.  Solutore,  Turin  {M.H.P.  Script,  ill.  222),  where  the  phrase  "nostrae 
congregationis  marchio  "  is  a  probable  corruption  of  "  nostrae  congregationis  monachus." 
He  first  appears  as  dead  26  Oct.  1078  (Car.  Reg.  cxcviii.  Cariario  di  Pinerolo, 
B.S.S.S.  II.  348).  The  chronology  in  the  text  seems  the  most  likely,  but  now  that 
Car.  Reg.  CLXXXix.  (=  cxciv.)  is  shown  by  Cipolla  to  be  forged  (Mon.  Noval.  i. 
168),  there  is  no  absolute  proof  Peter  did  not  die  earlier,  say  1076,  which  would  explain 
why  he  does  not  share  in  the  negotiations  with  Henry  IV  in  1076-7. 

■*  e.g.  Amadeus  I  probably  left  a  daughter,  Theoburga  ;  see  above,  p.  121. 

P.  O,  16 


242  Countess  Adelaide  and  her  sons 

line,  and  we  have  documentary  evidence  that  Amadeus  II  was  Count 
in  these  years \  But  the  Italian  mark  gave  another  possibility.  Both 
the  office  of  Marquess  and  the  alodial  ownership  came  to  the  Savoyards 
through  a  mixture  of  female  succession,  primogeniture  and  Imperial 
investiture^  The  collateral  Ardoinids  had  been  practically  excluded 
in  favour  of  Adelaide.  Hence  Agnes  the  younger's  claim  to  the  main 
share  of  the  lands  of  her  house  was  exceedingly  strong,  and  it  would 
be  difficult  to  separate  that  from  the  office  of  Marquess.  But  for  the 
present  she  was  too  young  to  marry,  and  Amadeus  II,  one  would  think, 
would  not  be  likely  to  yield  up  his  claim  to  rule.  However,  he  never 
obtained  investiture  as  Marquess ^  But  was  this  because  of  his  niece's 
eventual  rights  or  was  it  because  he  declined  to  support  Henry  IV  in 
the  civil  war  which  was  in  progress*?  We  have  no  means  of  judging, 
and  thus  the  question  of  his  succession  in  the  mark  of  Turin  must  be 
left  unsolved. 

Amadeus  II  did  not  long  outlive  his  elder  brother.  His  death  fell 
on  the  26th  January  io8o^  We  know  little  of  him,  save  his  appearance 
in  the  year  of  Canossa.  No  trustworthy  record  remains  to  give  us  the 
name  of  his  wife  even,  but  later  authors  call  her  Joan,  daughter  of 
Gerold  II,  Count  of  the  Genevois^.  They  are  not  to  be  trusted :  still 
the  statement  seems  probable,  since  the  Count  of  the  Genevois  was 
guardian  of  Amadeus  II's  grandson,  Amadeus  IIP.  Then  the  number 
of  his  children,  too,  is  doubtful.     A  daughter,  Adelaide,  appears  in 


^  See  specially  Necrol.  S.  Andreae  Taur.  (Car.  Reg.  cc.  M.H.P.  Script,  in.  195), 
"vii.  Kal.  Feb.  ob.  comes  Amedeus  de  Sabaudia"  :  and  Car.  Reg.  CCI.  (Guichenon, 
Preuves,  p.  21),  "  quondam  Petri  itemque  marchionis  sive  quondam  Amedei  comitis." 
The  one  document  of  his  rule  in  Savoy  (Car.  Reg.  xv.  Chevalier,  Cartulaire  de 
St  Andre-le-bas,Vienne,  pp.  191-2),  which  should  date  between  Feb.  1076  and 
26  Jan.    1080  (see  above,  p.   105,  and  n.   4I,  has  "regnante  Amedei  comitis." 

2  See  above,  pp.  155,  216-17,  223-4. 

^  He  is  only  once  styled  "  comes  et  marchio  "  (Car.  Reg.  ccxvii.),  and  this  is  in 
a  posthumous  Burgundian  document  of  his  daughter  in  1090.  I  think  Car.  Reg.  cci. 
cited  in  n.  i  above,  is  decisive  that  he  was  not  officially  recognized  as  such,  since  it 
emanates  from  his  mother,  Adelaide,  and  thus  distinguishes  him  from  his  brother, 
Peter  I. 

*  Cf.  above,  n.  i,  and  p.  105,  and  n.  4.  The  phrase  "  regnante. ..comite"  and  its 
like  indicate  neutrality. 

5  Cf.  above,  n.  i.  He  is  first  mentioned  as  dead  8  March  1080  (Car.  Reg.  CCI. 
Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  21). 

®  Guichenon,  Hist,  de  Savoye,  i.  p.  211.  The  Ckroniques,  which  are  quite  un- 
trustworthy, say  Joan,  daughter  of  Girard,  Count  of  Burgundy  {M.H.P.  Script.  11. 
92-4),  Chron.  Altacutnbae,  which  is  little  better,  says  {id.  671),  "  uxor  ejus  (Amedei  I 
or  n  ?)  de  Burgondia. "  Apparently,  the  chief  evidence  lies  in  the  name  Girard  =  Gerold. 
It  would  account,  perhaps,  for  the  large  slice  of  the  Genevois  possessed  by  Savoy. 

^  See  below,  p.  278. 


Counts  Amadeus   II  and  Oddo  II  243 

1090  as  the  widow  of  Manasses,  Sire  de  Coligny^  One  son,  Humbert  II 
le  Renforce,  is  well  known,  his  first  certain  document  dating  from  1097-. 
But  an  elder  son  is  made  probable  by  a  document,  which  shows  an 
Oddo  II,  Count  of  Maurienne,  in  the  year  1082^  Now  there  remains 
the  possibility  that  this  Oddo  II  was  Amadeus  II's  younger  brother 
Oddo^  who  in  this  case  displaced  his  child-nephew  Humbert  II  for  a 
time.  That  this  latter  Oddo  was  living  up  to  1091  seems  proved  by 
the  fact  that  we  find  no  donations  of  Countess  Adelaide  for  his  soul, 
such  as  exist  for  her  other  sons.  But,  if  he  remained  in  secular  life, 
it  is  not  likely  that  he  should  not  take  part  in  some  of  the  grants  or 
have  his  obituary  as  Oddo  comes  recorded.  In  consequence  the  view 
seems  a  likely  one  which  identifies  the  third  son  of  Adelaide  with  the 
Oddo,  Bishop  of  Asti,  who  appears  in  June  1080  and  lives  on  till  past 
I094^  Hence  Oddo  II  of  Maurienne  will  be  Amadeus  II's  elder  son, 
and  immediate  successor  in  his  Burgundian  lands. 

Much  different  was  the  course  of  events  in  Italy,  so  far  as  form 
went.  In  reality  it  was  much  the  same,  since  Adelaide  continued  to 
rule  in  both^     But  in  form  Amadeus  II's  death  was  followed  by  the 

1  Car.  Reg.  ccxvii.  There  is  much  attraction  in  the  view  of  M.  Guigue  (La  Mure, 
Histoiredes  Dues  de  Bourbon,  III.  Stip.  pp.  17-18)  and  of  M.  de  Manteyer  {Notes  Addi- 
tionnelles,  pp.  493-6)  that  Amadeus  II  had  anotherdaughterAuxilia(Usilia)  who  married 
Humbert  II  of  Beaujeu  as  his  second  wife.  There  is  a  charter  dated  c.  1 090-1 100, 
mentioning  her  and  her  four  sons,  Guichard,  Humbert,  Guigues,  and  Hugh  (Guigue, 
Cartiil.  de  Beaujeu,  p.  24),  and  there  is  another  reference  to  a  Humbert  de  Beaujeu 
(ap.  Guigue,  Humbert  II)  as  son-in-law  of  an  Amadeus,  Count  of  Savoy.  But  this 
latter  document  (Guigue,  op.  cit.  p.  14)  must  refer  to  Humbert  III  de  Beaujeu  and  his 
wife  Alice,  daughter  of  Amadeus  III  of  Savoy,  as  is  shown  by  its  contents  (see  below, 
p.  294,  n.  6). 

'^  Car.  Reg.  ccxxxii.  But  one  charter  probably  belongs  to  1092.  Cf.  below, 
p.  266,  n.  2. 

^  Bruel,  Charles  de  Cluny,  iv.  p.  752  (No.  3595)  and  note.  It  contains  the  gift  to 
Cluny  of  churches  at  Aiguebelle,  Montendry,  and  Charbonieres,  by  Agenric  and  his 
sons,  "  laudante  seniore  nostro  Oddone  comite  et  Guitfredo  cum  filio  suo  Nantelmo  et 
episcopo  Artaldo  laudante."  As  these  churches  had  been  previously  given  to  Agenric 
by  Burchard,  Bishop  of  Maurienne,  the  document  provides  evidence  of  the  complete 
dependence  of  the  Bishops  on  the  Counts  ;  see  above,  pp.  97-8.  This  document 
was  first  brought  to  notice  and  its  import  explained  and  date  certified  by  Count  di 
Vesme  in  the  Bollettino  storico-bibliografico  subalpino.  Anno  VIII.  pp.  390-2  (1903). 
He  makes  Oddo  II  elder  son  of  Amadeus  II.  M.  Renaux,  however  [Marqtiis  Odon 
I^),  is  strongly  for  his  being  the  youngest  son  of  Oddo  I. 

*  Car.  Reg.  CLXXill.,  cf.  above,  p.  224,  n.  6. 

^  The  view  goes  back  to  the  seventeenth  century.  Documents  of  his  are  known 
from  1080  to  1098  (Savio,  Gli  antichi  vescovi,  pp.  142-4).  But  beyond  the  fact  that 
Adelaide  continued  to  be  the  Bishop's  patroness  and  that  the  chronology  is  suitable, 
there  is  no  evidence  for  his  being  her  son. 

®  For  Oddo  II  can  only  have  been  a  boy;  and  of  Adelaide,  c.  1084,  it  is  said  by 
Willelm.  Monach.  Vi.  Benedicti  S.  Mich.  CI.  Abb.  (A/.  JI.F.  Script,  in.  292),  "quod 

16 — 2 


244  Countess  Adelaide  and  her  sons 

recognition  of  Peter  I's  daughter  Agnes  as  heiress  of  the  mark,  as  her 
grandmother  Adelaide  had  been  before  her.  If  this  position  of  hers 
was  to  be  maintained,  it  was  essential  to  find  a  husband  for  her;  so, 
although  she  can  hardly  have  been  more  than  fifteen  \  she  was  married 
almost  at  once.  On  the  8th  March  1080  Domnus  Fredericus  Comes 
appears  by  Adelaide's  side  at  Turing  This  personage  was  Frederick, 
Count  of  Montbeliard,  a  cousin  on  the  mother's  side  of  the  great 
Countess  Matilda  of  Tuscany.  His  strongly  papal  leanings  are  ad- 
mired by  a  contemporary  chronicler,  who  describes  him  as  a  strenuous 
champion  of  Gregory  against  the  schismatics  ^  That  they  were  not 
obvious  at  first  may  be  deduced  from  the  fact  that  he  was  invested 
before  May  1080  with  the  mark  of  Turin*.  Doubtless,  by  then  he  was 
married  to  Agnes. 

We  are  somewhat  in  the  dark  as  to  Adelaide's  policy  at  the  time. 
The  transaction  concerning  Fruttuaria  shows  her  an  adherent  of 
Gregory  VII ;  yet  her  presumed  son,  Oddo  Bishop  of  Asti,  attended 
the  Synod  of  Brixen  in  June  1080  and  subscribed  its  decrees ^  This 
might  pass  for  evidence  that  he  was  not  really  her  son,  were  it  not 
that  there  are  signs  of  Adelaide's  wavering  in  her  attitude.  Since 
Henry  IV's  return  to  Germany  the  breach  between  him  and  the  Pope 
had  grown  steadily  wider,  while  the  civil  war  between  Caesar  and  anti- 
Caesar  raged  on.  Finally  in  March  1080  he  was  again  deposed  by 
Gregory  who  at  the  same  time  accepted,  or  as  he  said  nominated,  the 
rebellious  Rudolf  as  King.  But  Henry  was  stronger  than  in  1076  and 
long-taught  in  affairs.  At  his  Synod  of  Brixen  in  June  he  in  turn 
deposed  the  Pope,  and  obtained  the  election  of  his  ablest  Italian 
partizan,  Guibert,  Archbishop  of  Ravenna,  to  the  chair  of  St  Peter. 

regni  quodammodo  claves  et  Longobardiae  teneret  aditum."  So  complete  a  control 
implies  the  possession  of  the  Savoyard  lands. 

^  See  above,  p.  206. 

2  Car.  Reg.  cci.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  21). 

•^  Bernoldi,  Chron.  1092  [AI.G.H.  Script,  v.  454),  "Hie  autem  comes  (Fridericus) 
sub  habitu  seculari  more  S.  Sebastiani  strenuissimus  miles  Christi  fuit,  viz.  aeclesiasti- 
cae  religionis  ferventissimus  amator  et  catholicae  pacis  indefessus  propugnator.  Hunc 
venerabilis  papa  Gregorius,  hunc  beatus  Anshelmus  Lucensis  episcopus  quasi  unicum 
filium  amaverunt.  Hunc  clerici  et  monachi,  immo  omnes  religiosi  ferventissime 
dilexerunt.     Hie  in  fidelitate  S.  Petri  contra  scismaticos  usque  ad  mortem  studiosissime 

certavit Erat  autem  filius  domnae  Sophiae  et  Ludowici  comitis,  quae  erat  matertera 

Mathildis,  quae... in  Italia  contra  scismaticos  multum  laboravit." 

*  Car.  Reg.  ccili.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  19).  See  above,  p.  197.  The  occur- 
rence of  the  style  marchio  for  Frederick  in  an  official  document  is,  I  think,  evidence 
enough,  since  there  was  no  other  source  for  it  than  Turin.  Bernold  also  in  his  Chronicle 
three  times  (1091,  1092  and  1093)  calls  Frederick  "Marchio,"  and  he  is  well-informed 
on  the  mark  of  Turin.     See  Meyer  v.  Knonau,  Heinrich  IV,  III.  p.  202,  n.  i. 

*  Savio,  Gli  antichi  vescovi^"^.  142. 


Adelaide  and  Benzo  of  Alba  245 

This  time  an  effective  schism  commenced,  and  Henry's  hands  were 
unexpectedly  freed  by  the  death  of  Rudolf  in  October  1080  at  the 
battle  of  the  Elster. 

A  striking  contrast  is  to  be  seen  between  Henry's  methods  in  his 
second  strife  with  Pope  Gregory  and  those  he  employed  in  his  first. 
Careful  statecraft  was  now  the  order  of  the  day.  In  the  spring  of 
1080  Burchard,  Bishop  of  Lausanne,  the  Italian  chancellor,  was  sent 
to  prepare  the  way  in  Lombardy  for  the  Synod  of  Brixen.  The 
Lombard  bishops  in  general  were  eager  for  the  fray.  But  there  was 
a  most  important  member  of  the  laity  to  be  gained  over.  This  was 
Adelaide  herself,  and  we  possess  a  metrical  letter  indited  to  the  Chan- 
cellor by  that  singular  person,  Benzo  Bishop  of  Alba,  then  an  exile 
from  his  seeS  urging  him  to  obtain  her  alliance  and  make  her  leader 
of  the  imperial  party  in  Lombardy ^  The  result  of  this  appeal  seems 
to  have  been  that  Benzo  was  himself  entrusted  with  the  negotiations. 
It  seems  an  odd  choice  that  this  unutterably  vulgar  charlatan,  with  his 
base  spaniel-fawning,  his  nauseous  flattery,  his  bragging,  his  prating 
abuse  and  childish  reasoning,  should  be  chosen  for  an  office  which 
was  presumably  delicate.  The  fact  casts  some  light  on  Adelaide's 
character,  somewhat  akin  to  Queen  Elizabeth's  perhaps,  and  on  that 
of  her  age,  the  perpetual  victim  of  big  phrases  and  large,  high-coloured 
claims.  Nor  must  we  underrate  Benzo;  he  was  brave  and  resolute,  and 
endowed  with  any  amount  of  short-breathed  cleverness. 

The  volatile  Bishop  at  once  set  about  the  task.  Here  was  no  place 
for  stern  exhortations  and  reproaches,  he  tells  us.  That  queen  of  fishes, 
that  admirable  whale,  was  not  to  be  caught  with  hook  or  chain.  No, 
Brother  Benzo  provided  honied  words,  flowers,  aromatic  herbs,  syren- 
voices,  and,  thus  hymning  and  strumming,  led  her  into  the  net  of  the 

^  See  Lehmgrubner,  op.  cit.  pp.  54-60.  The  Patarine  citizens  seem  to  have  risen 
under  a  certain  Buzi  c.  1077  and  driven  him  out.  There  is  no  record  that  he  ever 
returned.  Cf.  below,  p.  254.  The  popular  feeling  in  Alba  stands  in  interesting 
contrast  to  that  in  Turin. 

2  Benzonis  ep.  Alb.  iv.  13  [M.G.H.  Script,  xi.  646-7), 

"  Unum  est  de  quo  te  volo,  pater,  cautum  reddere, 
Hadeleidam  appella  in  regali  federe, 
Voca  earn  regis  matrem,  si  vis  hostem  perdere. 
Per  legatum  clama  eam  magistram  concilii, 
Dominam  atque  ductricem  communis  consilii, 
Ut  Hegeria  dux  fuit  in  causis  Pompilii. 
Aquilam  de  coelo  trahis  si  hoc,   pater,  dixeris, 
Et  plumabis  non  moventem  qua  parte  volueris, 
Plus  profuerit  hoc  regi  thesauris  innumeris." 
On  Benzo,  see   Lehmgrubner,   Benzo  von  Alba ;    for  date  of  this   epistle,    see  id. 
pp.  64-5. 


246  Countess  Adelaide  and  her  sons 

faiths  He  transcribes  four  of  his  letters",  which  are  more  than  worthy 
of  all  he  says  of  them.  St  Peter  Damian  staggers  painfully  in  the  rear  of 
these  astonishing  outbursts.  They  require  to  be  read  in  full  to  be 
appreciated,  although  any  brief  extract  will  condemn  them.  In  sum- 
mary he  offers  her  the  rule  of  Italy  at  the  side  of  her  son-in-law,  and 
he  strengthens  his  argument  with  rebuses  on  her  name,  texts  galore 
adduced  with  true  medieval  irrelevance  and  unconscious  profanity,  and 
an  imitation  litany  applied  to  her^  He  was  successful,  for  Adelaide 
joined  the  King's  party,  although  we  may  doubt  how  far  she  recognized 
the  schismatic  Pope,  and  Benzo  reported  his  triumph  in  a  letter  to 
Henry,  full  of  anxious  pleading  that  the  King  would  do  whatever 
Adelaide  should  declare  for-*.  Probably  her  motive  was  dislike  of  the 
communal  spirit ^  But  it  does  not  seem  that  she  restored  Benzo  to  his 
diocese,  although  Alba  was  apparently  in  her  territory. 

There  might  easily  have  been  a  ground  of  rupture,  however,  in  a 
rather  mysterious  circumstance.  Cunibert  of  Turin  about  this  time 
joined  the  new  schism®,  and  it  appears  that  his  support  was  purchased 
by  some  grant.  This  might  of  course  refer  to  the  possession  of 
S.  Michele  della  Chiusa;  but  Benzo's  words  of  warning  to  Cunibert, 
lest  Adelaide  should  get  to  know  of  it  and  he  should  lose  it,  seem 
to  imply  something  more  important.  Could  it  have  been  a  grant  of 
the  publica  potestas  of  Turin  ?     If  so,  it  has  been  lost^     In  any  case 

^  Benzonis  ep.  Alb.  lib.  v.  9  {M.G.H.  Script.  Xl.  653-4),  "ita  lyrizando,  organi- 
zando,  deduxit  earn  in  sagenam  fidei,  traxitque  ad  litus  ante  pedes  imperatoris 
Henrici."     An  impossible  thing  to  publish  while  Adelaide  lived. 

^  id.  v.  10,  If,  12,  13,  pp.  654-5.  For  the  dates,  see  Lehmgriibner,  op.  cit. 
pp.  72-4.     He  places  the  last  letter  about  the  beginning  of  1082. 

^  e.g.  "Certe,  si  dignaris  credere  consiliis  meae  parvitatis,  cum  tranquillitate 
sedebis  sub  rege  in  solio  regifice  majestatis,  et  videbis  ante  te  duces  cum  principibus, 
orbis  terrarum  opes  tibi  ministrantibus  "  (v.  10),  and  "  vult  enim  Deus,  quo  geras  rei 
publicae  sarcinam  cum  eo  qui  regnorum  regit  monarchiam  "  (v.  13). 

^  id.  v.  14  (pp.  655-6),  "omnia  ergo  quae  tibi  dixerit  domna  Adeleida,  audi 
vocem  ejus." 

*  Her  daughter  Adelaide,  too,  the  wife  of  the  anti-Caesar,  Rudolf,  had  died  early 
in  1079.  S^^  Meyer  v.  Knonau,  Heinrich  IV,  in.  206.  That  she  went  over  seems 
clear  from  Benzo,  and  her  subsequent  actions ;  see  below,  pp.  247-9.  •^"'-  ^°^  soon 
remains  doubtful.  But  see  Meyer  v.  Knonau,  op.  cit.  iii.  282,  314-5.  Cf.  on  Benzo 
above,  p.  246,  n.  i. 

«  Willelm.  Monach.  Vi.  Benedicti  S.  Mich.  CI.  Abb.  (M.H.P.  Script,  ill.  c.  291). 
Cf.  Savio,  Gli  antichi  vescovi,  p.  350. 

■^  Benzonis  ep.  Alb.  lib.  V.  8  (M.G.H.  Script.  XI.  653).  The  verses  are  most 
obscure  ;  they  run  : 

"O  Phulane,  presul  magne,  refer  Deo  gracias, 
Quia  semper,  quod  quaesisti,  possidebis  Tracias, 
Tandem,  tandem  exauditus,  perspice  quod  facias. 
Omnibus  absconde,  precor,  tarn  sacrum  misterium. 


Adelaide  allied  to  Henry   IV  247 

Cunibert  did  not  live  long  to  rejoice  over  his  gains.  He  died  in  108 1-2 
and  was  succeeded  by  another  simoniac  imperialist,  who  was  also  an 
ex-Patarine,  Guitelm  of  the  vice-comital  House  of  Baratonia^  i.e.  of 
Turin. 

Although  Adelaide  thus  gave  a  certain  support  to  the  Henrician 
party,  it  does  not  seem  that  she  was  in  any  hurry  to  give  practical  aid 
to  her  son-in-law,  when  the  latter  invaded  Italy  in  the  spring  of  1081. 
We  first  hear  of  her  taking  an  active  part  in  the  middle  of  1082,  during 
Henry's  victorious  campaign  against  the  other  great  lady  who  dominated 
Italy,  Matilda  of  Tuscany  I  Even  then  she  seems  to  have  acted  chiefly 
as  a  mediatress  in  a  vain  attempt  to  bring  about  a  peace  between  the 
King  and  the  Countess^  But  it  is  also  shown  from  a  further  incident 
that  she  accompanied  him  in  at  least  one  of  his  attacks  on  Rome. 

The  fact  appears  to  have  been  that  she  had  not  quite  a  free  hand 
in  Piedmont  or  Burgundy S  for  all  her  authority.     Not  to  mention  her 

Nam  si  dixeris  hoc  Evae,  ammittes  pomerium, 

Generabit  tibi  lingua  perpes  improperium.  " 
And  so  on  :  Cunibert  is  to  arrange  a  meeting  of  three  bishops  about  it.  That  Eva  is 
Adelaide  is  obvious.  But  what  was  Tracia?  Lehmgrlibner  (op.  cit.  p.  71)  suggests 
Chiusa,  which  has  much  in  its  favour  ("tandem"),  although  his  guess  that  Tracia 
stands  for  Tarentaise,  where  Chiusa  may  have  had  possessions,  is  hardly  to  be 
accepted.  But  can  Turin  be  meant  ?  That  would  rouse  Adelaide's  wrath  indeed  ; 
and,  if  it  is  not  too  far-fetched  and  too  favourable  to  Benzo's  learning,  pomerium 
could  have  two  meanings,  "orchard  "  (see  Ducange)  with  a  reference  to  the  fall  of 
man,  and  also  the  classical  sense  of  the  land  outside  the  walls,  which  was  within  the 
city-limit,  with  some  reference  to  the  Bishop's  immunity. 

Lehmgrlibner,  op.  cit.  pp.  70-1,  however,  and  Meyer  v.  Knonau,  Heinrich  IV, 
III.  168  and  n.  116,  take  this  incident  as  belonging  to  1079  ^^^  ^^  referring  to 
Gregory's  decision  of  Nov.  1078  (see  above,  p.  ■241).  But  this  could  not  be  secret; 
and  the  date  in  the  text  and  a  royal  grant  seem  to  me  more  likely.  This  would  fit  in 
with  Bresslau's  belief  that  the  forged  grant  by  Conrad  II  of  Maurienne  to  Turin  rests 
on  a  forged  grant  of  the  county  of  Turin  to  the  Bishop  (see  M.G.H.  Dipl.  I  v. 
p.  411);  which  might  be  based  on  a  genuine,  more  limited  diploma. 

1  Savio,  op.  cit.  pp.  350-r.  Cf.  Willelm.  Monach.  Vi.  Benedicti  S.  Mich.  CI.  Abb. 
(M.H.P.  Script.  HI.  293).     Guitelm  was  celebrated  for  his  eight  meals  a  day. 

^  See  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  27,  and  Lehmgrlibner,  op.  cit.  pp.  78-84  for  the  date, 
and  see  Meyer  v.  Knonau,  Heinrich  IV,  III.  458. 

3  Benzonis  ep.  Alb.  lib.  vi.  4  [M.G.H.  Script,  xi.  663)  : 

•'  Omne  coelum  sit  serenum,  veris  tempus  prodeat, 

Apparere  ante  solem  nullus  nubes  audeat, 

De  adventu  principissae  totus  mundus  gaudeat, 

Cujus  parem  non  assignat  orbis  ephymerida. 

Peciit  filium  regem  domna  Adeleida, 

Inter  regem  et  Mathildam  fieri  vult  media. 

Ipsa  quidem  se  et  sua  dabit  regi  filio, 

Ut  sit  frequens  ceu  Martha  in  regis  consilio 

Et  Hegeria  secunda  recenti  Pompilio." 
*  The  Burgundian  Bishops  at  this  time  (1084)  were  mainly  for  the  Pope.     The 


248  Countess  Adelaide  and  her  sons 

grandson-in-law,  Marquess  Frederick,  who  we  are  told  was  a  warm  Gre- 
gorian^, two  great  Piedmontese  ecclesiastics,  the  Abbots  of  S.  Michele 
della  Chiusa  and  of  S.  Benigno  di  Fruttuaria,  were  ardent  reformers, 
and  their  local  influence  was  very  considerable,  especially  among  the 
women.  Their  Abbeys,  situated  on  the  great  western  roads,  were 
centres  of  anti-imperial  machinations-.  Now  it  so  happened  one  year, 
probably  at  the  close  of  1083 ^  that  Benedict  II  of  Chiusa  was  sum- 
moned to  Rome  by  Gregory.  After  discussing  affairs  with  the  Pope, 
he  proceeded  towards  the  Abbey  of  Monte  Casino  evidently  for  nego- 
tiations with  the  great  Abbot  Desiderius.  But  he  never  reached  his 
goal.  Two  days  after  his  departure,  King  Henry,  who  was  then 
in  February   1084  probably  marching  through   Campania  in  order  to 

years  1076-80  showed  a  steady  progress  of  the  Gregorian  party  in  the  kingdom.     See 
Jacob,  Bourgogne,  pp.  82-5. 
^  See  above,  p.  244. 

^  Benzonis  ep.  Alb.  vi.  4  (iM.G.H.  Script,  xi.  663).     As  will  be  noticed,  he  puns 
Mons  Pircherianus  and  Fruciuaria  as  Porcarana  and  Riicteria.     See  Cibrario,  Storia 
della  nionarchia  di  Savoia,  I.  121.     (This  has  been  overlooked  by  Meyer  v.  Knonau, 
op.  cit.  III.  457,  n.  30,  and  461,  n.  34  ;  and  Lehmgrlibner,  op.  cit.  p.  84), 
"Duos  post  hec  Abacucos  Prandellus  edocuit, 

Et  per  eos  regi  nostro  et  nocet  et  nocuit... 

Unus  est  de  Porcarana,  alter  de  Ructeria, 

Facie  externiinati  nudant  monasteria, 

Hii  Prandello  tradunt  opes,  se  velant  miseria. 

Horum  monachi  vicissim  contra  regem  musitant, 

Et  per  omnes  regiones  nocituri  cursitant, 

Etiam  ad  versus  eum  feminellas  suscitant." 
All  this  obviously  refers  to  the  same  events  as  Willelm.  Monach.  Vi.  Benedicti 
S.Mich.  CI.  Abb.  xxxi.-xxxii.  {M.H.P.  Script,  in.  292-3),  " (Benedictus)  beatopapae 
Gregorio  ejusque  sequacibus  favebat  et  caritatis  largitionumque  copia...complacebat; 
propterea  regiam  aulam  simoniaci  canes  videlicet  paulatim  hac  fama  atque  latratibus 
compleverant,  solum  esse  Benedictum  qui  faceret  ut  suum  regi  detraheretur  diadema 
et  in  monasterio  S.  Michaelis,  quo  pacto  vita  et  regno  pariter  privaretur,  crebra  fieri 
conciliabula."  Lehmgrlibner,  op.  cit.  pp.  78-85,  dates  this  poem  vi.  4  of  Benzo  in 
1082  ;  but  see  below,  note  3 ;  the  year  1084  suits  better  the  circumstances  of  the 
Greek  embassy  given  by  Lehmgriibner,  pp.  82-3. 

*  The  date  is  derived  from  the  following  considerations :  (a)  Henry  IV  has  forces 
well  to  the  south  of  Rome,  and  apparently  is  not  at  Rome,  for  Benedict  there  had  free 
ingress  and  regress.  This  suits  February  1084  when  Henry  marched  from  Rome 
through  Campania  against  Duke  Robert  Guiscard  (see  Meyer  v.  Knonau,  Heinrich  IV, 
III.  522-3).  {b)  Benzo  after  the  quotation  above,  n.  2,  goes  on  vaguely  to  praise 
Henry's  clemency,  and  then  says  (p.  664),  "  ideoque  jam  est  scriptus  cum  imperatori- 
bus,"  which  seems  to  imply  the  imperial  coronation  happened  shortly  after.  Now  in 
March  Henry  reentered  Rome,  and  on  the  31st  of  that  month  was  crowned  Emperor 
by  his  anti-Pope,  Clement  HI  (Guibert  of  Ravenna).  See  Meyer  v.  Knonau,  op.  cit. 
III.  526-34.  The  other  possible  date  is  c.  April  1082,  when  Henry  IV  had  an  inter- 
view with  Abbot  Desiderius  of  Monte  Casino  at  Albano,  south  of  Tiber,  but  this  was 
before  his  great  attack  on  Matilda.     (See  Meyer  v.  Knonau,  op.  cit.  in.  441-6.) 


Benedict  II   of  Chiusa  249 

attack  Duke  Robert  Guiscard,  the  Pope's  ally,  learnt  of  his  journey, 
and  sent  after  him  a  troop  of  horse  in  all  haste.  Abbot  Benedict  was 
soon  overtaken  and  brought  to  the  King's  headquarters  in  fear  of  death 
or  torture  at  the  hands  of  his  enemies.  But  he  had  a  friend  at  need. 
Countess  Adelaide  was  at  the  time  campaigning  with  her  son-in-law, 
but  was  hardly  a  supporter  of  the  schismatic  pope.  She  now  firmly 
demanded  the  release  of  Benedict.  Henry  was  bitterly  unwilling,  but 
his  kinswoman  held  the  keys  of  his  kingdom,  the  entrance  into  Lom- 
bardy.  He  gave  way  and  released  the  Abbot,  who  thenceforth  confined 
himself  to  his  more  strictly  monastic  duties.  "  No  soldier  of  God,"  he 
said,  "entangles  himself  in  secular  affairs."  Thus  the  conditions  of  his 
freedom  are  veiled  under  a  pious  phrase'. 

Even  so,  he  did  not  have  a  wholly  quiet  time.  Not  to  mention  the 
exactions  of  Bishop  Guitelm  of  Turing  he  got  into  trouble  with  Adelaide 
over  a  Bishop  of  Vercelli,  probably  Rainer  or  Liprand^  This  simoniac 
Henrician  was  on  a  visit  to  the  monastery,  and  wished,  it  seems,  to  say 
mass.  No  doubt  Benedict  considered  him  excommunicate.  In  any 
case  he  ordered  the  cup  to  be  thrown  from  the  altar,  and  the  Bishop 
with  his  assistant  priest  to  be  dragged  out  of  the  church  with  some 
■damage  to  their  persons.  Whereupon  the  indignant  Bishop  complained 
to  Countess  Adelaide,  and  our  informant  only  adds  a  wail  at  the  loss  in 
property  the  abbey  sustained  from  the  two  in  consequence'*. 

Adelaide's  long  career  was  now  drawing  to  its  close.  She  had  out- 
lived nearly  all  her  children.  Adelaide  of  Swabia  had  died  in  I079^ 
On  the  27th  December  1087  the  Empress  Bertha  too  breathed  her  last''. 

1  Willelm.  Monach.  Ft.  Bettedicti  S.  Mich.  CI.  Abb.  {M.H.P.  Script,  in.  292-3), 
•"  Cum  a  domno  papa  Giegorio...Romam  quodam  tempore  fuisset  invitatus,  ejusque  col- 
loquio  fruitus  ad  Casinum  montem  properaret,  idque  regi  post  biduum  compertum  foret, 
tanto  studio  jussit  ilium  persequi  ut  ejus  impias  manus  nullatenus  posset  effugere — 
Sed...afifuit  illi  praesidio  Adaleidis  marchisia,  mulier  in  Dei  rebus  tunc  bene  devota, 
€t  in  rerum  administratione  constantissima,  de  cujus  morte  multis  facta  praeda  nostra 
usque  hodie  gemuit  patria.  Haec  itaque,  quoniam  apud  regem  tunc  temporis  multuni 
poterat,  constanter  ad  eum  intrat,  et  ut  ilium  Dei  famulum,  qui  etiam  secum  venerat, 
sibi  pro  sua  reddat  dementia  humiliter  supplicat.  Hunc  suae  decus  patriae... affirmat 
€sse...seque  reverti,  nisi  eo  recepto,  impossibile.  Visum  est  ergo  regi  quod  petebat 
durum  ;  hanc  tamen  offendere  ratus  non  esse  sibi  integrum,  eo  quod  regni  quodam- 
modo  claves  et  Longobardiae  teneret  aditum,  quamvis  invitus  multumque  renitens, 
patrem  reddit  Benedictum....Ad  monasterium  regressus,...in  jejuniis  et  eleemosynis  se 
in  Dei  rebus  adstrinxit...inquiens...Nemo  militans  Deo  implicat  se  negotiis  saeculari- 
bus."     Evidently  Adelaide  was  not  making  a  very  long  stay  in  Henry's  camp. 

2  Willelm.  Monach.  Vi.  Beneduti  S.  Mich.  CI.  Abb.  {M.H.P.  Script,  in.  293), 
"  monasterium  admodum  vexavit." 

•*  Savio,  Gli  antic  hi  Vt'scovi,  pp.  468-75. 

*  Willelm.  Monach.  Vi.  Benedicti  S.  Mich.  CI.  Abb.  {M.H.P.  Script,  in.  293), 
"  Quae  rerum  damna  vel  injurias  ab  illis  ob  hanc  causam  non  pertulimus?  " 

'  See  above,  p.  246,  n.  5.  •*  Meyer  v.  Knonau,  Heinrich  IV,  iv.  174. 


250  Countess  Adelaide  and  her  sons 

The  Countess  seems  to  have  cared  Uttle  for  her  daughters  ;  but  her  two 
dead  sons  are  remembered  in  gifts  to  various  monasteries'.  Her  last 
important  charter  was  a  grant  to  the  see  of  Asti,  made  perhaps  because 
the  Bishop-elect  was  her  son  Oddo.  It  is  dated  on  the  13th  June  1089, 
and  yields  up  to  the  Bishop  the  Abbey  of  S.  Dalmazzo  and  the  pieve  of 
Levaldigi,  both  in  Aurade,  just  as  Bishop  Girelm  had  held  them  ;  and 
in  return  for  the  curtis  of  Bredolo,  which  she  holds  as  a  benefice  from 
the  see,  Adelaide,  and  the  two  Agneses,  her  daughter-in-law  and  grand- 
daughter, give  up  the  ghiara  of  the  Tanaro  by  Rocca  d'Arazzo^ 

This  was  a  considerable  gift,  but,  if  it  was  intended  to  smooth  over 
troubles  with  the  Astigians,  it  failed  in  its  purpose.  The  next  thing  we 
learn  is  that  the  warlike  Countess  captured  and  almost  wholly  burnt 
their  city  in  March  1091^  We  may  doubt  whether  the  Bishop  found 
it  easy  to  rule  his  townsfolk. 

Not  long  after,  on  the  29th  of  June,  died  the  Marquess  Frederick*. 
He  left  behind  him  three  sons,  of  whom  the  eldest,  Peter,  was  con- 
sidered heir  to  the  mark^  Thus  Adelaide  seems  to  have  contemplated 
definitely  the  separation  of  the  Turinese  mark  from  the  county  of 
Savoy.  We  may  indeed  suspect  that  under  Oddo  H  this  was  already 
in  course  of  taking  place^ 

It  was  in  December  1 091 ''that  the  Countess' own  end  came;  the 
place  of  her  death,  if  we  give  credence  to  an  otherwise  absurd  legend, 

^  e.g.  Car.  Reg.  cci.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  21). 

^  Car.  Reg.  ccxv.  [Libra  verdc-d'Asti,  11.  B.S.S.S.  xxvi.  p.  67).  The  date 
offers  a  slight  difficulty,  since  Thursday  was  the  14th  June  in  1089  ;  however,  the 
indiction  XII.  is  right  for  that  year.  On  the  interpretation  of  the  charter,  see  above, 
pp.  159-60,  169-70,  228-9.  The  ghiara  is  the  pebbled  strand  by  a  river,  useful  for 
mills  and  towpaths. 

^  Oggeri  Alferii  Chron.  (Sella,  Cod.  Ast.  de  Malabayla,  11.  58),  "a.d.  MXCI.  xv. 
Kal.  Ap.  civitas  Astensis  quasi  tota  succensa  fuit  a  comitissa  Alaxia,  et  eodem  anno 
dicta  comitissa  obiit."  There  seems  no  good  ground  for  supposing  that  Oggerio 
Alfieri  has  duplicated  the  sack  of  1070.  The  date  18  March  would  seem  incon- 
sistent with  1091  ;  but  presumably  he  here  reckons  the  beginning  of  the  year  from 
Christmas. 

*  Bernoldi  Chron.  {M.G.H.  Script,  v.  451),  sub  1091  :  "  Fridericus  comes  et 
marchio  3  Kal.  Jul.  requievit  in  Domino";  and  id.  sub.  1092  {M.G.H.  Script,  v. 
454),  "  Obiit  autem  praedictus  comes  in  praeterito  anno,  i.e.  Dom.  Incarn.  109 1,  Ind. 
14,  3  Kal.  Jul.  scilicet  in  festivitate  S.  Petri,  et  in  crastinum,  i.e.  in  soUemnitate 
S.   Pauli,  sepelitur." 

5  Bernoldi  Chron.  [M.G.H.  Script,  v.  454),  "bona  Adelheidae  Taurinensis 
comitissae...quae  ejusdem  comitissae  nepos,  filius  Friderici  comitis,  habere  debuit." 
The  sons'  names  are  given  by  Carutti  [Regesta,  ccxxiii.). 

®  See  above,  p.  245. 

7  The  day  of  death  is  doubtful.  Bernold.  Chron.  [M.G.H.  Script,  v.  453)  has 
"  Adelheida  Taurinensis  comitissa  14  Kal.  Jan.  obiit,"  i.e.  19  Dec.  1091  ;  but  the 
Necrol.  S.  Solutoris  etc.  Turin  [M.H.P.  Script,  ill.  230)  has  "Viil.  Kal.  Jan." 
i.e.  25  Dec.  1091.     Probably  we  should  follow  Bernold. 


Deaths  of  Marquess  Frederick  and  Adelaide    251 

being  perhaps  Canischio  near  Cuorgne  in  the  Canavese^  Pious,  war- 
Hke  and  strong,  she  had  kept  order  and  held  to  her  own  middle  course 
in  spite  of  the  threats  and  blandishments  of  Emperor  and  Pope.  Besides 
her  great  contemporary,  Matilda,  of  course,  she  is  an  uninteresting  figure; 
and  in  view  of  her  acquiescence  in  the  separation  of  Savoy  from 
Piedmont,  we  have  no  call  to  think  her  a  prescient  stateswoman.  She 
was  willing  to  give  up  an  extraordinary  privilege  of  position.  Perhaps, 
also,  her  gifts  to  the  church  were  excessive.  Still  she  was  one  of  the 
last  maintainers  of  the  picblica  potestas  of  the  Carolingians,  a  great 
hereditary  ofificial  exercising  the  local  functions  of  the  stated  The 
most  remarkable  thing  about  her  is  the  way  in  which  she  hindered 
the  break-up  of  her  mark,  and  checked  for  a  time  the  natural  tendency 
of  events.  As  we  shall  see  in  the  next  section,  many  signs  of  a  change 
were  apparent,  but  the  actual  ruin  only  occurred  after  her  death. 


Section  VII.    The  break-up  of  the  mark  of  Turin. 

In  a  previous  section  of  this  chapter  it  has  been  remarked  that  the 
great  marchional  houses  of  North  Italy  lost  their  eminent  power  in  the 
eleventh  century.  Their  Marks,  as  Desimoni  well  said,  ramified  into 
mere  twelfth  century  Marquessates,  which  consisted  of  patrimonial 
domains  held  in  chief  of  the  Empire.  This  fate  did  not,  however, 
befall  every  race  of  Marquesses,  not  at  least  in  the  same  way.  We  find 
Matilda  of  Canossa  and  Tuscany  an  effective  ruler  of  her  counties  to 
the  last.  And  so  it  was  with  Adelaide  of  Turin.  None  the  less  the 
dominions  of  the  latter  were  exposed  to  the  same  influences  as  were  at 
work  elsewhere ;  and  even  under  her  shadows  of  the  coming  time  are 
faintly  cast  before  it. 

We  may  summarize  the  influences  leading  to  the  decay  of  the 
marchional  powers  under  three  main  headings,  which  as  usual  were 
somewhat  intermingled  and  related  in  real  life,  (i)  The  decay  of  the 
secular  publica  potestas.  (ii)  The  subdivision  of  lands  and  benefices 
by  inheritance,  (iii)  The  rise  of  the  citizen-class.  I  will  take  them  in 
order,  so  far  as  they  apply  to  the  mark  of  Turin. 

(i)  The  decay  of  the  secular  publica  potestas.  This  might  occur  in 
two  ways,  {a)  by  the  increase  of  "  immunities,"  ecclesiastical  or  lay,  and 

'  Chron.  Abbat.  Fructuariensis,  '*  Abdelida  comitissa,"  in  fear  of  the  Astigians, 
whose  city  she  had  burnt,  hid  22  years  "in  oppido  Caniscuh,"  died  there  and  was 
buried  by  a  shepherd  in  the  church  of  S.  Stefano.  Another  candidate  is  Chianoc  in 
the  Val  di  Susa.     See  Car.  Sup.  xxvi. 

"^  See  Car.  Sup.  LX.  (Cartario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  II.  p.  1 15),  "  que  quasi  regine 
habebantur  in  partibus  illis,"  which  gives  the  tradition  of  her  and  her  daughter-in-law 
Agnes  as  it  existed  in  12 18. 


252  The  break-up  of  the  mark  of  Turin 

{b)  by  the  decay  of  the  public  functions,  owing  to  the  mere  increase  of 
"  feudalism." 

{a)     The  increase  of  immunities. 

This  was  not  a  disease  from  which  the  marchional  power  of  Turin 
suffered  acutely.  Although  the  Bishops  of  Turin  had  large  demesnes, 
including  Chieri,  Testona  and  Rivoli,  with  a  pretty  complete  immunity 
since  c.  981  \  yet  they  never  attained  in  fact  to  any  jurisdiction  over 
the  city  of  Turin  itself  in  the  eleventh  century.  The  Bishops  of  Asti, 
of  course,  by  1041  '^  had  the  fullest  immunity  for  all  their  lands,  besides 
the  countship  of  Bredolo  and  complete  exclusive  jurisdiction  over  Asti 
and  a  radius  of  seven  miles  round  the  city.  Still  Adelaide  really  con- 
trolled the  Bishop's  actions  as  far  as  we  can  see^  Perhaps  the  Bishop 
of  Alba  enjoyed  the  same  immunity  as  he  of  Turin*. 

Then  there  were  the  great  abbeys,  such  as  Fruttuaria  and  Novalesa- 
Breme,  both  of  which  enjoyed  a  certain  amount  of  immunity  for  their 
lands.  Thus  Novalesa  exercised  the  districtum  of  PoUenzo*;  S.  Salva- 
tore  of  Turin  was  partially  immune®;  Fruttuaria,  too,  had  privileges, 
although  they  were  small ''.  Chiusa  had  obtained  a  grant  of  complete 
immunity  from  Henry  III  about  1140,  but  it  had  not  the  wealth  of  the 
other  abbeys*.     S.  Giusto  di  Susa  was  distinctly  immune  by  Conrad's 

1  Diploma  of  Otto  II,  c.  9S1  [M.G.H.  Dipl.  11.  283-5).  Prof.  Gabotto  (Carte... 
arcivescovili...  Torino,  B.S.S.S.  xxxvi.  p.  i)  thinks  this  charter  at  least  interpolated, 
with  e.g.  Pinerolo,  which  I  therefore  omit  in  the  text.  The  diploma  forbids 
"foderum,  vel  angariam,  aut  aliquam  publicam  funccionem  exigere,"  or  "in  aliquo 
loco  sibi  pertinent!  aliquod  placitum  tenere... sine... consensu  prefati  episcopii  epi*-- 
copi."  The  modesty  of  this  concession  is  strong  evidence  for  its  genuineness.  Cf. 
above,  p.  246.  ^  See  above,  Cap.  11.  Sect.  II.  App. 

^  If  Ivrea  formed  part  of  the  Mark,  we  have  to  add  the  "immunity"  of  the 
Bishop,  and  his  possession  of  the  districtum  of  Ivrea  within  a  radius  of  three  miles 
(M.G.H.  Dipl.  II.  804),  supposing  of  course,  as  Prof.  Gabotto  maintains,  the  charter 
of  Otto  III  is  substantially  genuine.  (Un  millennio  di  storia  eporediese,  B.S.S.S.  iv. 
p.  21.) 

*  There  seem  no  charters  extant  for  the  Bishops  of  Alba.  I  believe  the  episcopal 
archives  were  destroyed  by  fire,  but  cannot  now  find  the  reference. 

5  Cipolla,  Mon.  Noval.  I.  146-54  [  =  iM.G.H.  Dipl.  iv.  71),  192-200. 

®   C arte... arcivescovili  di  Torino,  B.S.S.S.  XXXVI.  p.  7. 

■^  Stumpf,  Acta  Imperii  in ed.,  No.  316,  Dipl.  of  1074,  "idem  coenobium  omnium 
hominum  remota  contradictione  sit  liberum,  nuUiusque  potestati  subditum " — 
probably  in  reference  to  the  grants  of  the  abbey  in  cominendam — -further  no  person 
is  to  require  from  the  monks,  their  servants  or  Xh^ir  villani,  "bannum  vel  aliquam  con- 
ditionem"  or  tithes.  A  grant  of  complete  jurisdiction  would  probably  be  more 
precise  after  the  style  of  the  grants  to  Chiusa  and  S.   Giusto. 

8  Car.  Reg.  cxxvi.  (D'Achery,  Spicilegiunt,  ed.  11.  ili.  386),  "jubemus...ut  nullus 
dux,  archiepiscopus,  episcopus,  marchio,  comes,  vicecomes,  sculdascius,  gastaldio, 
etc.  praedictum  monasterium  aut  abbates  seu  congregationem  inquietare,  molestare, 
disvestire,  aut  fodrum  toUere,  seu  legem  facere,  aut  placitum  tenere,  nisi  abbas 
ejusdem  loci  aut  suis  missis  (sic),  praesumat."     Cf.  above,  p.  221,  n.   3. 


Decay  of  the  publica  potestas  253 

grant,  unless  indeed  that  clause  was  only  added  (which  seems  unlikely 
owing  to  the  similar  position  of  Chiusa)  by  forgery  after  Adelaide's 
deaths  Of  lay  immunities,  finally,  there  was  only  that  which  the 
head  of  the  marchional  House  himself  possessed";  although  perhaps, 
the  Aleramids,  who  possessed  some  lands  in  the  mark,  had  attained  to 
immunity  in  some  document  which  has  not  been  preserved,  of  a  later 
date  than  Otto  I's  precept  of  967^. 

{b)  Somewhat  more  important  would  be  the  natural  decay  of  the 
publica  potestas  from  the  decrease  of  alodial  holding,  and  through  the 
hereditary  character  of  benefices.  Tenants,  not  in  chivalry,  would  be 
subject  to  their  lords'  correction  in  much.  Then  the  public  placita 
were  once  largely  concerned  with  cases  regarding  land.  Now  questions 
of  beneficiary  land  were  tried  by  courts  of  fellow-vassals  apparently*, 
and  alods  were  steadily  becoming  benefices. 

Yet  even  here  we  know  oi  placita  being  held  in  1064  by  the  public 
officials,  and  probably  they  continued  with  business  to  do. 

(ii)  As  to  the  subdivision  and  decrease  of  the  alods  and  benefices 
belonging  to  the  marchional  House,  we  find  in  the  Turinese  mark  two 
causes  at  work :  {a)  subdivision  by  inheritance,  and  {b)  ecclesiastical 
endowments. 

{a)  In  the  matter  of  subdivision  by  inheritance,  we  have  seen* 
that  up  to  Ulric-Manfred's  day  there  was  something  like  equal  division 
among  sons  in  practice.  Hence  a  third,  or  at  most  a  half,  of  the 
Ardoinid  lands  were  held  by  him.  But  his  younger  daughters  seem  to 
come  off  badly  in  their  portioning  after  his  death  * ;  so  that  Adelaide's 
demesnes  are  little  reduced.  Against  this  fact  we  have  to  reckon  the 
shares  which  were  given,  or  ideally  attributed,  to  her  younger  children, 
Amadeus  II  and  Bertha''.  As  the  mark  went  to  Peter  I's  son  in-law, 
and  the  two  younger  just  mentioned  both  left  heirs,  the  real  marchional 
possessions  must  have  been  reduced  to  some  extent  by  their  rights. 

(b)  More  important  are  the  wide  lands  given  by  the  later  Ardoinids 
to  the  Church,  so  wide  that  St  Peter  Damian  thinks  it  necessary  to 

^  See  above,  p.  201,  n.  2,  and  p.  221,  n.  3. 

-  See  above,  pp.  152,  n.  3  and  155. 

3  M.G.H.  Dipl.  I.  462-4. 

*  M.G.H.  Const.  I.  89.  Cf.  the  dispute  re  Govone,  "concilio  suorum  fidelium  " 
(see  below,  p.  259,  n.  4)  and  the  case  of  Ardizzo  di  Roccasparvera  being  tried  "in 
curia  sui  domini "  the  Marquess  of  Saluzzo,  29  May  1163,  Tallone,  Keg.  March. 
Saluzzo,  B.S.S.S.  XVI.  p.  13.  See  Ficker,  Forschungen  zur  Reichs-  und  Rechis- 
geschichte  IlalUns,  III.    324-31. 

^  See  above,  pp.  15 1-2,  155. 

'  See  above,  pp.  187-8,  232. 

^  See  above,  pp.  223-4  and  233.  There  seems  no  record  of  shares  belonging 
to  Oddo  or  Adelaide  ;  except  in  the  matter  of  Aiguebelle  in  Burgundy. 


254  The  break-up  of  the  mark  of  Turin 

prove  that  they  were  not  really  losers  by  their  donations  \  Their 
extent  is  easily  realized,  when  we  consider  that  almost  all  the  evidence 
adduced  above"  on  the  Ardoinid  demesnes  is  derived  from  charters  of 
donation.     We  know  little  of  their  lands  besides  what  was  given  away. 

In  sum,  we  see  that  heavy  losses  had  been  sustained  from  these 
two  causes  by  the  head  of  the  House.  No  doubt  she  had  not  suffered 
so  much  from  subdivision  as  the  Aleramids,  for  instance,  did ;  no 
doubt,  too,  the  marchional  receipts  went  up  from  the  increased  wealth 
due  to  the  great  abbeys.  But  it  was  just  this  official  position  and 
official  profits  which  were  becoming  precarious. 

(iii)  Lastly  there  is  the  obscure  subject  of  citizen  insubordination. 
On  this  point  it  is  always  to  be  remembered  that  west  Piedmont  lagged 
much  behind  the  greater  part  of  North  Italy  in  communal  develop- 
ment, and  that  the  circumstance  worked  two  ways :  (a)  the  Marquess- 
Count  retained  power  longer  in  the  city ;  (d)  he,  and  not  the  Bishop, 
bore  the  brunt  of  citizen-disaffection  at  first. 

Now  in  the  mark  there  appear  pretty  certainly  four  cities,  Turin, 
Alba,  Asti  and  Albenga,  the  situations  of  which  were  very  diverse. 

Turin  was  completely  under  its  Marquess,  whose,  authority  there 
was  the  old  comital  authority.  Yet  here  we  find  Ulric-Manfred  already 
in  fear  of  the  citizens  c.  1028,  and  engaging  in  a  street-fight  with  them 
which  he  wins^  They  also  riot  in  favour  of  Bishop  Cunibert  and 
against  Abbot  Benedict  II  of  Chiusa  c.  1066,  apparently  contrary  to 
the  sympathies  of  Adelaide \  We  also  have,  if  it  is  right  to  reckon 
it,  the  mysterious  triumph  of  Cunibert^  In  short,  though  no  change 
appears,  there  is  a  certain  tension  existing®. 

The  situation  of  Alba  is  not  so  clear.  Later  when  the  citizens 
acquired  the  regalia  from  Frederick  Barbarossa,  no  mention  is  made  of 
any  antecedent  rights  of  the  Bishop'' ;  nor  would  the  consuls  submit  to 
do  homage  to  the  latter  till  1197  when  he  conceded  a  fief  to  the  cityl 
Perhaps  the  city  had  never  been  placed  under  its  Bishop.  In  any  case, 
however,  the  communal  spirit  was  rising,  and  Bishop  Benzo's  expulsion 
from  the  city  and  episcopimn  after  Buzi's  agitation  shows  the  citizens 
acting  with  considerable  independence*. 

1  See  above,  p.  189,  n.  2. 

2  See  above,  pp.  135-6,  and  157-65. 
^  See  above,  pp.  184-5. 

4  See  above,  p.  -234.  *  See  above,  p.  246. 

'°  Cf.  Cibrario,  Storia  di  Torino,  p.  166. 

■^  Rigestutn  Comunis  Albe,  B.S.S.S.  xx.  pp.  72,  80. 

*  id.  p.  300,  "  Et  propterea...consules  fecerunt  ipsi  episcopo  fidelitatem  quam 
hue  usque  ipsi  et  eorum  predecessores  ei  facere  detractaverant  pro  feudo  quod  comunis 
(sic)  Albe  dicebatur  ab  eo  tenere." 

^  Cf.  above,  pp.  245-6. 


The  war  of  succession  255 

Much  the  same  should  probably  be  said  of  Albenga,  that  it  was  still 
in  the  mark,  but  possessed  the  beginnings  of  a  commune.  Such  at 
least  was  the  lot  of  its  sister-city  of  Savona  under  the  Aleramid 
Marquesses '. 

Asti,  as  we  have  seen,  furnished  an  outstanding  instance  of  episcopal 
prerogative'';  but  here  two  curious  developments  had  taken  place.  On 
the  one  hand,  the  bishops  had  become  dependents  of  the  Marquess  of 
Turing  On  the  other  the  citizens  had  grown  violently  insubordinate 
to  both  authorities.  Twice  did  Adelaide  carry  the  rebellious  city  by 
assault^.  And  if  she  maintained  her  power,  it  was  clear  that  a  weak 
ruler  would  not  have  done  so. 

So  we  see  that  even  in  the  mark  of  Turin  a  communal  spirit,  and 
probably  communes  themselves  more  or  less  in  embryo®,  were  arising. 
The  phenomenon  was  connected  with,  or  found  its  expression  in, 
religious  questions.  Asti  and  Alba  seem  Patarine,  Turin  the  other 
way.  The  great  thing  was  that  the  citizens  wished  to  have  their  say,  or 
in  fact  their  riot,  on  matters  of  political  and  social  policy. 

Matters  then  were  in  this  stage  when  Adelaide  died  in  December 
1 09 1,  and  a  war  of  succession  arose.  We  may  distinguish  four  active 
claimants.  First  there  was  Count  Peter  of  Montbeliard,  a  boy  of  ten  at 
most,  Adelaide's  recognized  heir.  Then  there  was  the  young  Count  of 
Savoy,  either  Oddo  II  or  his  younger  brother  Humbert  II,  in  the  prob- 
able case  that  the  latter,  still  a  lad,  had  succeeded  by  now.  There  was 
the  Emperor  Henry  IV,  and  his  son  King  Conrad,  in  right  of  the 
Empress  Bertha.  Finally,  there  was  the  Aleramid  Marquess  Boniface  I 
"del  Vasto,"  eldest  surviving  son  of  Countess  Bertha,  Adelaide's  sister*. 
It  was  not  so  difficult  to  see  which  way  things  would  go  when  two  of 
the  competitors  were  a  lad  and  a  boy. 

Conrad  accordingly  entered  the  mark  with  an  army,  spreading 
devastation  round'',  and  doubtless  Boniface  soon  did  the  same  with  less 

1  Cf.  Bresslau,  Konrad  II,  I.  pp.  409-10.  G.  Rossi  (Storia  della  cittd.  e  diocesi 
d' Albenga,  p.  95)  points  out  that  the  Bishop  of  Albenga  has  a  comital  position,  in  his 
lands,  in  1225. 

^  See  above,  Cap.  II.  Sect.  Ii.  App. 

^  See  above,  pp.  169-70,  227-9. 

■*  See  above,  pp.  227-9,  250. 

'  Asti  had  its  commune  actively  ruling,  soon  after  Adelaide's  death.  Count 
Cipolla  {Mon.  Noval.  11.  294,  n.  i)  considers  the  affair  of  Abbot  Odilo  shows  a  habit 
of  public  assembly  at  Turin  (see  above,  pp.  184-5).  Cf.  Cibrario,  Storia  di  Torino, 
p.    166. 

*  Savio,  //  marchese  Bonifacio  del  Vasto  ecc.  (Atti  della  Accad.  delle  Scienze  di 
Torino,  xxil.  (1886-7)),  p.  90.  It  seems  to  have  been  owing  to  a  desire  to  explain 
Boniface's  claim  that  later  historians  gave  him  a  wife  Alice,  daughter  of  Peter  I,  who 
is  unknown  in  the  sources. 

^  Meyer  v.  Knonau,  Heinrich  IV,  iv.  347-8,  373-4,  and  especially  Hellmann, 


256  The  break-up  of  the  mark  of  Turin 

pomp.  The  Emperor  proceeded  at  once  to  gain  over  Oddo,  Bishop  of 
Asti,  and  his  sturdy  citizens.  Not  only  were  new  possessions  added  to 
the  episcopal  domains,  but  the  castle  of  Annone  and  the  county  of 
Asti  were  now  finally  given  over  to  the  Bishop  ^  Thus  the  citizens  saw 
the  cotitado  at  last  freed  from  the  great  marchional  house.  How  strong 
the  commune  had  grown  may  be  seen  from  the  fact  that  in  1095  Bishop 
Oddo  granted  Annone  itself  to  the  consuls  ad  comtnunem  utilitatem 
istorutn  civium'. 

One  curious  episode  of  the  war  seems  hinted  at  by  some  doubtful 
references  to  the  life  of  a  French  magnate,  Burchard  de  Montresor 
near  Tours,  He  had  been  wounded  almost  to  death  in  the  local  feuds 
of  his  district  which  had  begun  about  1066,  and,  being  in  extremis,  was 
unwittingly  made  a  monk  by  his  sorrowing  kindred.  Unexpectedly 
recovering,  he  started  off  on  a  pilgrimage  to  Rome  and  got  his  monastic 
quality  cancelled  by  the  Pope.  He  did  not  however  return  to  Touraine; 
but  remained  in  Italy  and  married  a  Lombard  marchioness.  We 
further  learn  that  he  overthrew  the  Turinese,  that  he  was  advocate  of  a 
widow  Agnes,  and  that  his  wife  was  unfaithful  and  betrayed  him  after 
many  years'  residence  in  Italy  to  his  adversaries  by  whom  he  was 
slain  ^ 

op.  cit.  pp.  27-35.  Bemold.  Chron.  {M.G.H.  Script.  V.  454),  "  Hujus  (Friderici) 
ergo  filium  ex  nepte  domnae  Adelheidae  susceptum  Heinricus  rex  cum  filio  suo 
exheredare  proposuit,  terramque  ejus  hostiliter  invadendo,  et  circumquaque  devastando, 
etiam  Fructuariensi  monasterio  multa  mala  intulit."  Cf.  Willelm.  Monach.  on 
Adelaide's  death,  above,  p.  249,  n.  i.  Further  evidence  is  given  by  the  sufferings  of 
the  provostship  of  Rivalta  by  1097:  "destructae  atque  turbate  esse  videntur  tanj 
ostili  incursione  quam  (rerum)  utilium  penuria  "  {Cartario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  11. 

P-  39)- 

1  Libra  verde...d' Asti,  il.  197  (25  April  1093),  198  (Car.  Jieg.  ccxxvi.,  ccxxviii.), 

aoo  [B.S.S.S.  XXVI.]. 

2  Car.  Reg.  ccxxx.  (Sella,  Cod.  Ast.  de  Malabayla,  iii.  p.  651). 

^  See  on  this  point  Savio,  /  primi  conti  di  Savoia,  pp.  466-70  and  Carutti, 
Regesta,  Excursus  iv.  pp.  371-5.  The  texts  are:  Gesta  A?nbasiensium  dominoruniy 
Bouquet,  XI.  259,  "  Buchardus  de  Monthesauro,  morbo  coactus,  monachus  efficitur ; 
qui  convalescens  monachum  exuit  et  Romae  ante  papam,  quod  ignorans  effectus  esset 
monachus,  nee  se  ordini  acquievisse,  jurando  affirmavit.  Qui  cum  rediret  in  Longo- 
bardia  quamdam  marchisiam  duxit  uxorem  et  filio  suo  Alberico  terram  Turoniae 
divisit.  Buchardus  vero  plures  annos  inibi  vixit  et  a  quodam  Lombardo  proditione 
peremptus  fuit."  Baldrici  abbatis  Burguliensis  (Archbp.  of  Dol)  Carmina  (Migne, 
CLXVi.  1 194,  1 195,  1 197);  parts  of  three  epigrams  on  Burchard  de  Montresor, 
viz.  : 

(i)       "Tu  Taurinenses  solus  sic  edomuisti 

Ut  te  crediderint  mille  fuisse  viros. 
Agnetis  viduae  tutor,  domitorque  reorum, 
Corruis  uxoris  ultor  adulterii." 
(ii)       "At  Longobardae  dum  tandem  proditioni 
Occurris  vindex,  persequerisque  reos, 


The  war  of  succession  257 

Now  is  this  Agnes  the  daughter  or  daughter-in-law  of  Adelaide,  or 
neither  of  them  ?  Is  it  she  or  some  other  Lombard  marchioness  who 
married  Burchard  ?  And  at  what  time  did  these  things  happen  ?  The 
date  is  somewhat  of  a  difficulty.  If  the  feuds  in  Touraine  began 
c.  1066^  we  are  surprised  to  find  Burchard's  Lombard  activity  in  some 
time  following  1091.  But  that  Agnes  is  one  of  the  Turinese  Agneses 
is  made  very  likely  by  Burchard's  subduing  the  Turinese,  which  could 
only  have  reference  to  the  troublous  times  after  1091.  Baldric's 
epigram,  however,  seems  to  imply  that  Agnes  and  Burchard's  wife 
were  separate  persons ;  and  he  probably  married  a  lady  of  some  other 
marchional  house.  I  do  not  know  if  it  is  really  likely  that  he  is  the 
Marquess  Burchard,  who  appears  in  the  Emperor's  entourage  in  these 
years-.  If  so,  he  may  have  intervened  in  Piedmont  in  1093  and 
onwards,  after  Conrad  had  turned  rebel  to  his  father,  and  when  the 
rights  of  the  Montbeliard  line  might  enjoy  a  transitory  favour  with 
Henry  IVl 

Although  Conrad  survived  till  iioi,  we  have  no  trace  of  him  in 
Piedmont  after  the  rupture  with  his  father  in  1093.  As  to  the  fate  of 
the  mark,  the  lot  of  the  southern  portion  is  pretty  clear.     The  counties 

Hostibus  atque  reis  te  prodit  adultera  conjux, 
Sicque  cadis  modico  vulnere  magnus  homo." 
(iii)     "At  dum  pro  parvo  Turonus  ducis  dominatum, 
Ad  Longobardos  fulmineus  properas. 
Quam  gentem  verbis  tibi  dum  subjungis  et  armis, 

Gentis  et  uxoris  proditione  cadis. 
Ecce  nihil  de  Te  superest  nisi  pulvis  et  ossa ; 
Pax  tibi,  bella  quidem  causa  fuere  necis." 
Carutti  suggests  Agnes  may  be  the  Empress,  but  surely,  if  so,  Baldric  would  mention 
the  fact,  so  much  to  his  hero's  credit. 

'  Besides,  Alberic,  Burchard's  son,  was  in  possession  of  the  lands  in  Touraine 
before  1074,     See  Savio,  op.  cit.  p.  470,  n.   2. 

'^  See  Meyer  v.  Knonau,  Heinrich  IV,  v.  2,  59,  63,  71,  97,  114,  115,  118.  This 
latter,  however,  who  last  appears  in  i  loi ,  seems  to  be  Marquess  of  Istria,  who  appears 
from  1091  {id.  iv.  345,  390,  454,  478,  479)  with  a  brother  also  called  Burchard  (id. 
IV.  390). 

"  Thus  Henry's  general  might  be  advocate  of  Agnes.  Here  I  may  mention  the 
last  facts  known  about  the  two  ladies  of  that  name.  Agnes  of  Poitou  was  still  living 
in  August  1091  and  may  be  the  Agnes  who  intervenes  at  Susa  in  March-April  1095 
(Car.  J^eg.  CMXLV.  Carte... d^Oiilx,  B.S.S.S.  XLV.  p.  56).  She  was  buried  at  Ferrania 
(in  Boniface's  lands).  Her  epitaph  (Car.  A'<f.  ccxxxiil.  "Lapis  Ferraniae  ")  con- 
tains the  lines : 

"Hec  Pictavorum  comitum  stirps  nobiliorum 
Pulcra  fuit  specie  nurus  Adalasiae. " 
Agnes  of  Savoy  professed  Roman  law  in  1091  (Car.  J\eg.  ccxxi.).  1096-9  she  gave 
half  Villanova  and  half  Airasca  to  Fruttuaria  Abbey  (Carte. ..del  PineroUse,  B.S.S.S. 
III.  2,  p.  190,  cf.  Car.  A'eg.  ccxux.,  and  CCLIII.).  She  later  became  a  nun  at  Fruttuaria 
(Car.  Meg.  CCXLIX.,  Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  24)  like  the  widowed  Empress  Agnes 
before  her. 

P.  o.  17 


258  The  break-up  of  the  mark  of  Turin 

of  Aurade,  Bredolo  and  Albenga,  with  parts  of  those  of  Turin  and  Alba, 
fell  to  Marquess  Boniface  of  Vasto'.  With  the  countships,  of  course, 
he  took  whatever  domains  of  the  elder  Ardoinid  line  lay  in  those  parts. 
Thus  the  Aleramids  obtained  a  great  extension  westwards ;  but  their 
new  domains,  the  future  marquessates  of  Saluzzo,  Busca,  Ceva,  Crave- 
sana,  etc.,  lapse  for  a  time  from  the  history  of  the  House  of  Savoy  and 
retreat  without  our  purview.  Roughly  speaking  the  northern  boundary 
of  the  present  province  of  Cuneo  was  also  that  of  the  Aleramids'^. 
A  war  was  of  course  begun  with  Asti  over  their  claims  to  territory^ 

What  happened  to  the  northern  portion  of  the  mark  is  not  so  easy 
to  say,  as  the  subsequent  conquests  of  Amadeus  IIP  tended  to  oblite- 
rate the  former  state  of  things.  The  Montbeliards  returned  to  Germany. 
We  find  Humbert  II  of  Savoy  in  possession  of  the  Val  di  Susa  and  of 
some  fractions  of  the  plain.  The  Guigonids,  perhaps,  came  down  the 
Val  di  Fenestrelle  to  Mentouilles  at  this  time^  The  Bishop  of  Turin 
became  independent,  as  far  as  communal  liberty  allowed  him.  The 
exception  is  very  important,  for  not  only  did  the  Turinese  acquire  self- 
government  in  the  vacancy  of  the  mark*',  but  two  towns  in  his  own 
demesne,  Chieri  and  Testona,  advanced  on  the  same  path".  A  similar 
autonomy  to  that  of  the  Bishop  of  Turin  was  attained  by  the  great 
Abbeys,  Fruttuaria,  Chiusa,  and  Pinerolo,  although,  as  we  shall  see,  the 
two  latter  were  to  a  certain  degree  under  controP.  Here  again,  how- 
ever, we  must  note  that  the  communal  spirit  was  separating  Pinerolo 
from  its  abbey ^     Finally,  we  must  add  in  the  country  districts  the  rule 

1  The  sole  contemporary  reference  is  contained  in  a  letter  of  Mainard,  Bishop  of 
Turin,  re  property  at  Scarnafigi  c.  1 112-8  (Car,  Reg.  CMXLVi.,  Savio,  Gli  aniichi 
vescovi,  354-5)1  "  Tandem  post  mortem  comitisse  Bonifacius  potestatem  in  terra 
adeptus  est." 

^  See  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  30  and  n.  3,  where  a  list  of  demesnes  passed  from  the 
Ardoinids  to  the  Aleramids  is  given. 

^  Cf.  below,  pp.  274-5.  The  county  of  Asti  went  to  the  Bishop,  who  also  claimed 
Bredolo. 

*  See  below,  pp.  285-9. 

^  See  above,  p.  227,  and  cf.  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  31,  n.  i. 

^  See  Car.  Reg.  CCLVII.  [M.H.P.  Chart,  i.  742)  where  Emperor  Henry  V  in  ui6 
concedes  to  the  Turinese  "  omnes  ussus  bonos  eorum,"  which  they  enjoyed  in  his 
father's  lime  and  makes  them  immediate  subjects  of  the  emperor,  "salva  solita  justicia 
Taurinensis  episcopi."  This  seems  to  show  the  Bishop  had  increased  his  powers  but 
had  no  full  jurisdiction.     See  below,  p.  280. 

'  Both  appear  as  communes  in  the  twelfth  century.  See  for  Chieri,  Cibrario, 
Storia  di  Chieri. 

8  Cf.  below,  pp.  285-6,  287,  336,  356. 

■'*  The  commune  was  existing  according  to  Prof.  Gabotto  {V Abazia  ed  il  comune 
di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  I.  p.  114)  already  c.  1150.  The  nature  of  these  lesser  Pied- 
montese  communes  was  largely  feudal.  It  was  the  landholders,  the  signori  of  the 
country-side,  who  at  first  formed  them.     See  Prof.  Gabotto,  //  "  Comune''^  a  Cuneo 


Rulers  of  Piedmont  in  the  twelfth  century      259 

of  the  capitanei  and  other  nobles.  Some,  like  the  Marquesses  of 
Romagnano,  became  for  parts  of  their  demesnes  and  for  a  certain  time 
independent  ^  Others,  such  as  the  Viscounts  of  Salmour,  those  of 
Turin  or  the  lords  of  Piossasco,  never  seem  to  have  become  so  in 
theory,  but  they  ruled  their  lands  all  the  same-. 

In  fact  it  is  now  with  something  of  a  cataclysm  that  feudalism,  in 
the  proper  sense,  appears  in  Piedmont.  Instead  of  public  hereditary 
officials  wielding  the  publica  potestas,  we  find  in  the  twelfth  century 
landlords,  signori,  castellani,  exercising  a  jurisdiction  over  their  estates 
which  is  called  later  atm  ?neromixto  imperio^.  They  usually  hold  from 
some  superior  by  homage  and  military  service.  They  sub-enfeofif  parts 
of  their  lands  on  the  same  terms.  And  the  confusion  is  increased  by 
the  fact  that  one  family  of  compossessing  signori  will  hold  of  several 
superiors,  the  Emperor,  the  Count  of  Savoy,  the  Bishop  of  Turin,  and 
an  Abbot  or  so,  all  at  once.  Thus  instead  of  the  simple  outlines  of  the 
older  administration  we  are  faced  by  a  mass  of  jurisdictions,  built  on 
the  tenure  of  land,  and  only  checked  in  their  increase  by  the  custom  of 
compossession.  In  result,  the  feudal  system  in  west  Piedmont  came 
in  rather  revolutionary  fashion,  due  to  the  break-up  of  the  ancient  terri- 
torial divisions  and  the  disappearance  of  the  local  public  authority*. 

nel  secolo  XIII  e  le  origini  comunali  in  Piemonte,  Boll.  stor.  bibl.  subalp.  Anno  V. 
p.  19. 

^  This  is  of  course  natural  as  the  Romagnano  had  a  share  of  the  Ardoinid  alods 
and  benefices.  It  is  confirmed  by  the  absence  of  Romagnano  as  Testes  to  Savoyard 
and  Sahizzese  documents,  and  by  the  terms  of  Frederick  I's  Privilege  (1163)  to  the 
Romagnano  (Stumpf,  No.  3976,  Carte... del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  in.  2.  203).  They 
were,  however,  vassals  of  the  Bishop  of  Turin  (Carte. ..del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  III. 
1.  191). 

2  See  for  the  Piossasco's  lands,  Count  di  Vesme  {Origini  delta  feudality  ecc. 
B.S.S.S.  I.  pp.  43-8);  for  the  Salmour,  Signor  Patrucco  {Le  famiglie  signorili  di 
Saluzzo  ecc.  B.S.S.S.  X.  pp.  87-91);  for  the  Viscounts  of  Turin,  Signor  Rondolino 
(Boll.  stor.  bibl.  subalp.  Anni  VI.  viii.  and  IX.). 

^  The  privilege,  cited  in  n.  i,  gives  the  fullest  twelfth  century  form  of  this 
kind  of  jurisdiction  in  Piedmont.  Most  of  the  Romagnano  lands  are  held  "cum 
districto  et  omni  honore,"  the  latter  being  the  feudal  novelty.  The  term  is  further 
explained  as  including  "districto,  bannis,  albergariis,  hostiliciis,  bataliis,  judiciis," 
and  is  "  salva...imperia]i  justicia."  The  Romagnano,  of  course,  with  their  marchional 
claims,  would  possess  a  wider  jurisdiction  than  most.  Still  one  may  note  that  their 
lands  now  have  this  full  jurisdiction  attached  to  them  severally.  They  do  not  form 
part  of  an  administrative  district. 

*  An  instance  of  the  transition  is  furnished  by  an  Astigian  charter  of  1 1 17  {Libra 
verde...d' Asti,  I,  B.S.S.S.  xxv.  p.  247).  Here  the  Bishop  makes  an  accord,  after 
disputes,  with  Rudolf,  Signor  of  Govone,  concerning  the  jurisdiction  and  seigneurial 
rights  of  Govone  :  e.g.  the  Bishop  holds  placita  of  Govone  if  present,  otherwise 
Rudolf :  of  the  three  greater  criminal  placita  Rudolf  takes  one-third,  the  Bishop  two- 
thirds  profits  ;  of  the  lesser  placita,  hall  each  ;  right  of  appeal  to  the  Bishop  is  reserved 
if  the  latter  is  not  present ;  one-third  of  the  marriage-tax  to  Rudolf;  and  so  on.     It  is 

17 — 2 


26o  The  break-up  of  the  mark  of  Turin 

in  the  nature  of  a  treaty,  and  shows  that  the  benefice  has  become  a  fief  with  jurisdiction. 
The  local  placita  are  now  held  by  the  vassal  in  right  of  his  holding.  There  is  no  appeal 
to  former  documents,  only  the  Bishop  is  said  to  invest  Rudolf  with  Monticello  (part 
of  the  benefice)  in  the  manner  of  his  predecessors.  The  \vordfeudu>n  is  not  yet  used. 
The  Bishop  acts  by  advice  of  his  vassals,  "  conscilio  suorum  fidelium."  No  doubt  the 
fact  that  a  vassal  had  to  be  tried  by  his  peers  for  breach  of  his  feudal  contract  made 
usurpation  easier,  while  ecclesiastical  immunities,  the  viscounts'  share  in  judicial 
profits,  and  actual  subinfeudation  of  the  same  by  the  holders  of  ecclesiastical  immuni- 
ties would  furnish  models  and  spread  the  practice. 

An  original  right  in  law  may  be  hinted  at  by  the  later  title  castellani.  Had  the 
nobles  enfeoffed  with  a  castle,  a  special  jurisdiction,  burgimiindiiim,  burgbann,  and 
court,  like  castellani  (burggraves)  beyond  the  Alps?  See  Mayer,  Deutsch.  u.  Franzos. 
Verfassungsgeschichte,  II.  89-96. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  ATTEMPT  TO  RECOVER  THE  MARK  OF  TURIN 

Section  I.    Humbert  II. 

With  the  death  of  Countess  Adelaide  we  enter  on  a  new  period  and 
a  different  order  of  affairs  in  Savoyard  history.  The  epic  strife  of 
Church  and  Empire,  the  dramatic  clash  of  rival  ideals,  great  European 
problems,  the  wide  outlook  of  an  international  principality  go  off  the 
scene.  These  and  their  like  lie  for  sixty  years  outside  our  interest,  and 
we  have  to  confine  ourselves  to  the  fortunes  of  a  petty  and  secluded 
state,  with  its  small  bickerings,  small  triumphs  and  small  defeats.  It 
was  not  that  the  Counts  of  Savoy  were  forgetful  of  their  glorious  past. 
It  will  appear  through  this  chapter  that  the  most  constant  element  in 
their  policy  was  the  attempt  to  recover  the  mark  of  Turin  and  with  it 
their  great  position  in  the  Empire.  But  the  times  had  changed.  Their 
Italian  mark  was  broken  into  fragments  and  almost  all  outside  their 
dominion.  They  were  now  only  Burgundians,  and  their  Transalpine 
state  was  in  the  paralysing  grip  of  Feudalism.  In  fact,  if  we  only  knew 
the  history  of  Savoy  for  this  period,  which  it  is  to  be  remembered  is 
almost  entirely  lost,  we  should  find  that  its  more  essential  parts  would 
concern  not  the  half-foreign  wars  for  Piedmont,  but  the  struggle  of 
the  Counts,  inheritors  of  the  notion  of  the  State,  with  the  Feudal 
Principle. 

The  gradual  dissolution  of  the  Carolingian  fabric  of  state  was  ac- 
companied and  succeeded  by  the  development  of  "feudalism."  Without 
attempting  to  be  especially  precise  or  complete  in  giving  the  conception 
of  the  latter  word,  we  may  define  it  as  a  system  in  which  the  functions 
of  government  were  attached  to  the  possession  of  land  and  in  which 
land  was  mainly  held,  not  in  full  ownership,  but  on  terms  of  military 
service  and  personal  fidelity.  The  symptom  of  its  full  growth  is  the 
locahzing  of  jurisdiction.  Justice  is  no  longer  administered  for  govern- 
mental  districts   by  their   officials,  however   hereditary  and  feudal  in 


262  Humbert   II 

tenure,  but  for  their  estates  and  villages  by  the  feudal  possessors  of  the 
soil.  The  pagi  of  the  state,  even  the  estates  of  the  greater  feudal 
tenants,  crumble  from  this  point  of  view  into  their  component  atoms\ 
Yet  although  the  transition  to  feudalism  began  early,  it  was  long  (if 
ever)  before  it  supplanted  the  system  of  public  government  on  public 
grounds,  which  it  supplemented,  encroached  upon  and  tended  to 
destroy.  The  process,  too,  admitted  great  variety  according  to  the 
variations  of  personalities,  countries  and  times. 

To  begin  with,  ihe.  publica  potesias  had  two  main  branches,  the  local 
official,  the  count  generally  speaking,  and  the  central  government,  the 
king,  which  worked  both  through  the  local  official  and  beside  him  on 
any  given  district.  The  mutual  relations  of  these  two  branches  were 
rapidly  contaminated  with  feudalism,  but  the  public  "state "-side  was 
for  long  not  superseded,  perhaps  it  is  truer  to  say  never  superseded. 
There  was  an  obvious  possible  antagonism  between  the  two,  king  and 
count,  from  such  causes  as  particularism,  the  unwieldiness  of  the  realm, 
incompetence,  ambition  and  so  forth,  but,  although  such  a  conflict  was 
exacerbated  by  the  feudal  element  in  their  relation,  feudalism  was 
essentially  the  enemy  of  both,  so  far  *as  they  were  publicae  potestates. 
They  expressed  the  state's  functions,  public  law,  a  public  administration 
operating  through  society  and  holding  it  together.  Feudalism  expressed 
fractional  functions,  private  law,  personal  relations  excluding  the  state 
and  one  another. 

Now  the  comparative  vigour  of  local  and  central  authorities,  of 
count  and  king,  differed  in  the  various  realms  formed  out  of  Charle- 
magne's empire.  In  France,  where  their  mutual  relations  were  most 
contaminated  with  feudalism,  we  find  that  the  real  kingship  fades 
and  verges  towards  disappearance  c.  looo-iioo.  Fortunately  for  the 
monarchy,  its  greatest  vassal,  the  Duke  of  the  French,  obtained  the 
title  and  prestige,  retained  some,  and  claimed  all,  the  functions  of  the 
moribund  kingship;  but  the  war  against  feudalism  proper  is  carried  on 
for  almost  two  centuries  on  behalf  of  the  publica  potestas  by  the  greater 
local  officials,  whose  own  connection  with  their  head,  the  king,  has 
become  merely  feudal.  It  is  Duke  William  the  Conqueror,  not  the 
King  of  France,  who  organizes  or  reorganizes  a  public  administration  in 
Normandy,  which,  if  on  largely  feudal  lines,  is  none  the  less  at  enmity 
with  the  true  logic  of  feudalism  :  and  the  same  is  true  of  the  other  great 
French  fiefs.  The  Capetians  had  for  long  to  confine  their  chief 
interests  and  the  greater  part  of  their  activity  to  performing  the  same 

^  Not  that  all  tenants  in  chivalrj'  held  their  land  on  these  terms  "cum  honore." 
A  part  of  the  land  of  a  seigneur  would  be  granted  out  in  lots  merely  sufficient  to 
maintain  a  knight,  the  "knight's  fee"  of  England,  without  any  jurisdiction,  save 
over  serfs. 


Feudalism  in  the  twelfth  century  263 

task,  with   more  administrative  means  at  the  commencement,  in  the 
restricted  territories  where  the  great  mass  of  their  demesnes  lay. 

It  was  only  in  the  sequel  that  they  gained  the  power  to  conquer 
their  rivals,  the  heirs  of  old  local  authorities.  Thus  the  functions  of 
the  state  lived  on,  however  transmuted  and  feudalized,  in  their  local 
forms,  while  in  their  central  forms  they  had  almost  vanished  over  the 
greatest  part  of  the  realm. 

But  passing  on  to  Germany,  we  find  a  different  state  of  affairs, 
perhaps  because  the  land  was  less  feudalized  in  the  stricter  sense  and 
allodial  holding  was  common.  There  the  "racial"  Dukes,  the  chief 
representatives  of  the  local  authorities,  by  no  means  shake  loose  from 
the  King's  control.  The  monarch  actually  governs  and  they  are  his 
instruments  and  subordinates;  in  fact  he  outlives  them,  and  only  falls  in 
the  thirteenth  century  when  he  attempts  to  govern  through  the  small 
feudal  lords,  who  have  been  completing  their  evolution  in  the  lower 
strata  of  the  public  ofificials  and  of  the  landlords.  In  short,  we  arrive 
at  the  old  statement  that  Germany  was  the  most  strongly  organized 
kingdom  of  the  earlier  Middle  Ages.  There  the  decisive  conflict  was 
to  be  between  the  decadent  central  public  authority  and  feudalism  well 
developed,  not  as  in  twelfth-century  France  between  feudalism  well 
developed  and  those  strong  local  public  authorities  which  in  an  epoch 
of  primitive  feudalism  had  conquered  their  central  master.  The 
German  kingship  fell,  while  the  French  peers  survived  to  swell  the 
strength  of  the  new  French  monarchy  in  its  war  with  the  latest  stage  of 
feudalism.  Their  preparatory  local  work  was  a  potent  cause  of  the 
success  of  that  centralizing  system. 

For  our  subject  we  may  neglect  these  thirteenth-century  develop- 
ments and  confine  our  attention  to  the  solid  Germany  and  fragmentary 
France  of  the  twelfth  century.  The  next  point  to  consider  is,  which 
of  these  two  models  was  more  nearly  followed  by  Germany's  two  de- 
pendencies, Italy  and  Burgundy.  Still  speaking  in  broad  terms,  and 
marking  only  the  bare  outlines,  we  may  say  that  Italy  approximates 
to  the  German  type.  For,  if  the  royal  authority  under  the  German 
Emperors  was  foreign  and  intermittent,  yet  it  was  strong  when  the 
Emperors  and  their  invading  armies  were  present  in  Italy;  and  inter- 
mittency  was  the  keynote  of  medieval  central  government  in  general. 
Then  in  the  rivalry  between  the  monarchy  and  the  greater  nobility,  the 
rise  of  the  Communes  could  not  fail  to  disable  the  latter.  As  I  have 
already  mentioned',  the  Italian  cities  were  by  their  history  exceptionally 
strong  and  independent,  and  closely  allied  with  the  lesser  nobility.  It 
is  a  natural  consequence  of  the  foregoing  that  in  Italy  the  royal  power, 
such  as  it  was,  outlived  that  of  the  greater  local  holders  of  the  ancient 
^  Cf.  above,  Cap.  il,  Sect,  l  and  pp.  ■214-19,  254-5- 


264  Humbert  II 

publica  potestas,  as  from  other  causes  and  in  far  more  vigorous  strength 
it  had  done  in  Germany.  About  iioo  the  great  hereditary  Marquesses 
of  Tuscany  and  Turin,  etc.  have  disappeared  by  extinction  or  sub- 
division. Counts  and  Bishops  are  yielding  to  the  Communes  and  the 
local  feudatories.  On  the  other  hand  the  Hohenstaufen  are  still  for- 
midable public  authorities,  although  their  strength  is  derived  from 
German  or  Sicilian  sources. 

But  cross  the  Alps,  and  we  are  in  a  kingdom  of  the  French  type. 
Under  Rudolf  III  the  royal  authority  faded  to  nothing  in  Burgundy. 
Its  means  were  exhausted,  its  power  was  almost  nil.  Nor  could  the 
German  Emperors  restore  it ;  their  demesne  lands  in  Burgundy  were 
few  or  none  ;  their  interest  in  the  kingdom,  until  too  late,  was  for  the 
most  part  precautionary  only.  It  safeguarded  Italy  and  the  Alps. 
Hence  in  Burgundy  the  remnants  of  the  publica  poteslas  survived  in 
fact  only  in  the  hands  of  its  local  holders,  the  Counts,  lay  or  eccle- 
siastical ;  or  at  least  it  was  so  south  of  the  Lake  of  Geneva,  where  the 
experiment  of  the  Rectorate  had  no  effect.  It  was  the  Counts  who 
carried  on  the  struggle  with  mere  feudalism,  just  as  did  the  Dukes  of 
Normandy  or  French  Burgundy,  and  who  eventually  formed  small 
medieval  states,  under  feudal  forms,  which  used  feudalism  itself  as  an 
aid  for  the  ancient  publica  potestas  in  reintegrating  society.  They  were 
too  weak  as  a  rule  to  stand  the  shocks  of  time  when  the  great  modern 
monarchies  were  formed,  but  by  its  position  astride  of  the  Alps  Savoy 
at  least  survived  till  within  living  memory  ^ 

At  the  death  of  Adelaide  the  feudal  spirit  and  the  feudal  system 
were  steadily  gaining  ground,  and,  as  the  authority  of  the  Counts  of 
Savoy  survived  partly  because  of  their  adroit  use  of  feudal  ideals  and 
tendencies,  it  is  most  desirable  to  know  in  what  proportion  it  was 
composed  of  public  functions  and  feudal  rights  during  its  eleventh  and 
twelfth  century  vicissitudes.  Unfortunately  the  evidence  to  hand  is 
very  small,  owing  to  the  scantiness  of  our  records. 

Whitehands'  position  is  pretty  clear.  His  authority  as  Count  of  his 
four  counties,  Aosta,  Maurienne,  Savoy  and  Belley  could  be  compared 
to  that  of  a  German  Duke".  As  he  held  of  the  powerless  king  and  of 
weak  monasteries,  we  may  treat  his  allodial  and  beneficiary  lands  as 
much  the  same  thing.  In  them  he  had  full  powers,  however  limited  by 
custom,  over  his  serfs,  and  claims  to  service  and  so  forth  from  the 
benefices  he  had  sub-enfeoffed.  How  much  land  in  his  counties  was 
not  held  of  him,  we  cannot  say,  but  the  Bishops  of  Maurienne  and 
Aosta  were  his  vassals,  as  well  as  the  viscounts  for  part  of  their  lands  at 

1  A  fragment  still  remains,  the  Val  d'Aosta. 

2  See  above,  p.  7,  and  cf.  below,  p.  423. 


Limitations  to  feudalism  in  Savoy  265 

any  rate^  He  may  in  other  counties  have  been  subordinated  to  the 
authority  of  the  respective  counts ;  but  we  have  seen  reason  to  believe 
that  the  county  of  Sermorens  was  practically  vacant  and  that  the 
Genevois  was  breaking  up.     Besides  some  of  his  lands  were  immune-. 

But  it  remains  a  question,  whether  during  the  century  the  Counts  of 
Savoy's  public  authority  as  apart  from  their  rank  as  feudal  landowners, 
remained  intact.  On  this  aspect  of  their  power  it  transpires  that  they 
found  a  mint  in  Maurienne^;  they  exercise  public  functions  in  Belley^; 
they  maintain  their  power  over  the  Bishops^;  they  keep  up,  in  part  at 
any  rate,  their  functions  of  a  judicial  and  policing  nature  over  all  their 
counties*.  If  we  deduct  the  control  over  great  vassals,  which  in  prac- 
tice may  not  have  been  much,  and  the  loss  due  to  the  growing  feudal 
jurisdictions,  we  may  add  the  escape  from  all  external  control  them- 
selves'', and  the  frequent  enforcement  of  new  homage,  as  a  result  of 
petty  wars,  from  which  homage  the  Counts  were  able  at  times  to  draw 
full  feudal  corollaries  ^  Thus  the  facts  seem  to  point  to  an  authority 
growing  more  and  more  feudal  and  deriving  new  sources  of  strength  as 

^  For  Humbert's  powers  as  landholder  see  above,  pp.  22-3.  For  his  suzerainty 
■over  the  Bishops  of  Maurienne  and  Aosta,  see  above,  Cap.  i.  Sect.  iv.  The 
•viscounts  of  course  held  their  vicecomital  benefices  from  him.  In  the  thirteenth 
•century  it  seems  that  all  the  seigneurs  of  Maurienne,  Savoy,  Aosta,  Tarentaise  and 
Belley  held  of  the  Count,  save  at  that  time  the  Bishops  of  Tarentaise  and  Belley 
■whose  status  was  contested.  Cf.  Menabrea,  op.  cit.  pp.  487-8.  The  Saracen  devasta- 
tions of  the  Alpine  valleys  in  the  tenth  century  would  be  one  cause  of  the  absence  of 
-allodial  holders. 

-  See  above,  Cap.  i.  Sect.  iv.  and  cf.  p.  81,  n.  4,  especially. 

■*  See  above,  pp.  124,  224-5. 

*  See  above,  p.  123. 

'  e.g.  Car.  Keg.  ccxxxvii.  St  Anselm  of  Canterbury  warns  Humbert  H,  "ne 
putetis  ecclesiam,  quae  in  vestro  principatu  est,  vobis  datum  esse  in  haereditariam 
dominationem,  sed  in  haereditariam  reverentiam  et  in  tuitionem." 

*  Humbert  H's  grant  of  jurisdiction  to  Bellevaux  Abbey  (Car.  Keg.  ccxi.i. 
Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  25),  i.e.  "banni  infractum  et  legem  de  omni  forisfacto " 
does  not  prove  too  much,  as  the  land  given  was  held  from  the  Count.  But  the 
Count's  alod  and  his  comital  benefice  (consularis  fiscus)  were  then  still  distinguished. 
See  below,  p.  272.  Better  evidence  is  afforded  by  the  fact  of  the  survival  of  the 
])ul)lic  functions  of  the  viscounts,  in  strict  conjunction  with  that  of  the  counts.  See 
below,  pp.  440-5.  Such  privileges  of  an  hereditary  benefice  would  not  be  the  result 
of  a  new  reorganization:  cf.  Menabrea,  op.  cit.  pp.  400-1. 

^  We  do  not  find  them  c.  1200  doing  homage  to  any  Burgundian  magnate  except 
to  the  Archbishop  of  Lyons  and  the  Bishops  of  Geneva  and  Sion,  and  this  can  only 
have  been  for  small  fiefs.  Cf.  Whitehands'  franchisia  in  1025  (above,  p.  81,  n.  4), 
and  above,  pp.  157-8.  But  the  fact  that  most  of  their  vassal  seigneurs  came  to 
enjoy  nietum  rnixtttm  itiiperiuiii  must  have  much  diminished  the  area  of  their  power. 

*  .Such  as  that  of  the  seigneurs  in  Tarentaise,  see  below,  pp.  269-70.  This  is  also 
an  instance  where  the  homage  implied  real  subjection.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Sires 
de  Beaujeu  and  Coligny  do  homage  in  the  thirteenth  century  without  any  such  result. 


266  Humbert  II 

well  as  weakness  from  the  process.  But  the  process  of  feudalization, 
although  it  changed  the  forms  of  their  power,  did  not  really  or  perma- 
nently sap  it  or  efface  the  tradition  of  its  public  nature. 

Our  knowledge  of  the  rule  (1091-1103)  of  Count  Humbert  II,  le 
Renforce^  as  tradition  styled  him,  does  not  fall  readily  into  a  chrono- 
logical sequence,  partly  from  the  scantiness  of  the  records,  partly  no 
doubt  from  the  scattered  nature  of  his  domains.  An  account  of  him 
must  therefore  be  arranged  on  territorial  lines  or  according  to  the  sub- 
ject matter  of  his  documents,  as  either  may  serve  more  conveniently. 

The  main  fact  about  him  is  at  once  obvious  :  the  centre  of  gravity 
of  the  House  of  Savoy  has  shifted  back  to  Burgundy.  Adelaide  and 
her  sons  were  Lombards  with  a  Burgundian  dependency.  Humbert  II 
is  a  Burgundian  with  some  lands  and  great  claims  in  Italy.  And  this 
posture  of  affairs  is  to  continue  for  some  centuries,  being  well  typified, 
as  will  appear  in  the  sequel,  by  the  ofificial  style  of  the  head  of  the 
House.  The  title  Marquess  is  relegated  henceforward  to  the  second 
place,  as  a  mere  supplement  to  their  Burgundian  Countship. 

Humbert's  natural  tendency  therefore  would  be  to  conserve  his 
Burgundian  territory  and  extend  it  as  much  as  possible.  It  would  also 
be  unconsciously  to  resist  thorough-going  feudalism  and  consciously  to 
make  use  of  feudalism  for  the  maintenance  of  his  authority.  He  would 
seek,  too,  to  make  good  his  claims  in  Italy.  This  premised,  we  may 
treat  of  his  activity  under  the  following  heads,  (i)  his  relations  with  the 
Empire,  (ii)  his  wars  and  alliances  in  Burgundy,  (iii)  his  ecclesiastical 
policy  in  Burgundy,  (iv)  his  Italian  policy. 

(i)  With  regard  to  the  Empire,  the  mere  fact  of  the  shrinkage  of 
the  Savoyard  power  to  Burgundy,  in  which  the  Emperors  had  such 
small  influence,  would  entail  a  certain  aloofness.  To  this  factor  we 
may  add  the  depressed  conditions  of  a  schismatic  period,  the  poverty 
of  the  Count  amid  his  barren  mountains,  and  the  hostility  which  he 
must  have  felt  towards  his  rivals  in  Piedmont.  In  consequence,  we 
find  Humbert  only  once  dating  by  the  imperial  reign  and  then  in  a 
doubtful  copy-.  The  Count's  real  leanings  were  towards  his  kindred 
by  culture  and  language  of  Langued'oil  and  Langued'oc.     It  was  no 

^  Car.  Reg.  ccxLiii.  "Umbertus  nobilissimus  comes  qui  cognominatus  est 
Reinforciatus. "  But  also  Car.  Reg.  CCLXXXIX.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  34),  which 
dates  c.  11 31-4,  has  "Amedeus  comitis  Umberti  Refortiati  filius,"  and  shows  the 
surname  is  an  old  one.  He  had  probably  succeeded  before  Adelaide's  death.  .See 
below,  p.  273. 

^  Car.  Sup.  xxvii.  (Cipolla,  Motmmenta  Novaliciensia,  i.  p.  224).  The  charter 
seems  genuine  but  carelessly  copied,  e.g.  the  date  should  be  Feb.  1092  not  Feb. 
1082.  Carutti  considers  the  phrase  "Henrico  III  rege  regnante"  an  error.  But 
Henry  IV  was  III  in  Burgundy,  and  Humbert  II  might  well  not  recognize  the 
schismatic  imperial  coronation  of  1084. 


Humbert   II's  neighbours  267 

doubt  in  some  French  or  Burgundian  assembly  that  he  took  the 
crusading  vow.  But  for  some  reason  or  other  he  never  fulfilled  it. 
Perhaps  his  remissness  was  as  well  for  his  lands  and  dynasty  \ 

(ii)  He  was  in  fact  busy  enough  at  home.  Savoy  was  surrounded 
by  several  other  rival  feudal  powers,  some  like  herself  of  comital  origin 
and  strong,  others  merely  arising  from  the  break-up  of  the  public 
administration,  but  formidable  from  their  feudal  sympathy  with  the 
Savoyard  barons.  These  neighbours  it  will  be  best  to  mention  here; 
since  they  furnish  the  environment  for  subsequent  Savoyard  history, 
and,  if  the  meagre  chronicling  we  have  lets  us  know  little  of  their 
influence,  it  is  all  the  more  important  to  bear  it  in  mind  and  to  recollect 
that  the  incessant  war-cries  of  a  hundred  years  are  buried  in  that  silence. 
First,  then,  was  "  Franche  Comte,"  the  County  of  Burgundy,  ruled  by 
the  Anscarids,  descendants  of  Otto- William.  They  were  the  most 
powerful  of  all  the  Burgundian  nobles,  for  William  II  had  again  united 
French  Macon  to  Imperial  Burgundy,  and  his  subordinate  vassals  seem 
less  independent  of  their  Count  than  were  those  of  Provence.  "Franche 
Comte,"  however,  barely  touched  the  Savoyard  frontier  at  this  period. 
In  what  is  now  "la  Suisse  romande"  we  find  three  Bishops,  two  of 
whom  at  least  seem  losing  ground.  The  Bishop  of  Lausanne  finds  his 
county  of  Vaud  shrinking  to  the  actual  demesnes,  the  episcopium, 
of  his  church,  and  provides  an  excellent  example  of  a  Count  who  did 
not  succeed  in  retaining  his  public  functions  over  his  county.  The 
Bishop  of  Sion,  as  we  shall  see,  had  a  hard  time  of  it  with  the  Counts 
of  Savoy  themselves.  The  Bishops  of  Geneva  are  more  obscurely 
placed,  but  they  seem  to  have  obtained  the  county  of  Geneva  from  the 
Franconian  Emperors  and  then  to  have  enfeoffed  it  to  its  old  possessors, 
the  Counts  of  the  Genevois,  with  whom  they  carried  on  a  secular  quarrel*. 
The  Counts  of  the  Genevois,  indeed,  seem  to  have  been  the  most  un- 
lucky of  the  greater  Burgundian  feudatories,  perhaps  owing  to  their 
resistance  to  the  Franconian  dynasty.  They  had  gained  Equestricus,  but 
the  county  of  Geneva  or  "  the  Genevois  "  was  tattered  and  torn.  New- 
Chablais  and  a  south-western  strip  were  lost  to  Savoy.     The  Sires  of 

'  Car.  Reg.  ccxxxn.,  "impetranda  Dei  gubernatione  in  suo  viatico  ultramarino." 
He  is  demonstrably  in  Piedmont  in  Nov.  1098  (Car.  Reg.  ccxxxvi.,  Cartario  di 
Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  I.  42),  and  in  iioo  (Car.  Reg.  CCXL.,  M.H.P.  Chart,  i.  728). 

■^  See  on  Geneva  and  the  Genevois  Menabrea,  op.  cit.  pp.  334-6,  and  KaUmann, 
op.  cit.  pp.  77-9.  The  relations  of  Bishop  and  Count  were  arranged  for  a  time  by  the 
treaty  of  Seyssel  1 124,  by  which  the  Count  did  homage  to  the  Bishop,  saving  that  to 
the  Emperor.  Kallmann  loc.  cit.  points  out  the  Count  was  a  direct  vassal  of  the 
Emperor  at  that  time.  But  by  12 19  the  county  was  held  of  the  Bishop.  How  the 
Bishop's  rights  arose  and  what  the  Count  was  vassal  of  the  Emperor  for,  seem  dark 
points.  Was  the  latter  for  the  county  of  Equestricus?  Cf.  J.  J.  Hizely,  Les  comtes 
du  Genevois^  etc.,  Mem.  de  I'lnstit.  nat.  Gen.  Ii.  {1854). 


268  Humbert   II 

Faucigny  although  they  did  them  homage  almost  divided  the  county 
with  them.  Geneva  was  at  least  half  under  the  bishop.  And  the  Counts, 
withdrawn  to  Annecy,  ruled  a  remnant  only^  Humbert  II's  con- 
temporary was  his  kinsman,  Count  Aymon  I,  who  appears  to  have  been 
a  personal  friend  as  well  as  a  relative.  It  was  a  half-brother  of  the  latter, 
William  I,  who  then  ruled  the  great  barony  of  Faucigny,  occupying  the 
watershed  of  the  Arve  and  the  Giffre  between  the  remains  of  the  Genevois 
and  New-Chablais.  Although  practically  independent,  he  was  a  vassal 
of  Aymon  of  the  Genevois,  and  thus  is  an  example  of  the  feudal  land- 
owner, who  converted  his  proprietary  rights  into  a  territorial  dominion'. 

On  the  north-west  Humbert  H's  lands  were  bounded  by  several 
baronies,  which  like  Faucigny,  and  even  more  so,  had  broken  loose 
from  all  comital  control.  Such  were  Beaujeu,  Miribel,  Bauge  and 
Villars  in  the  later  Bresse;  Coligny  (whose  Sire  was  Humbert's  nephew), 
with  lands  stretching  from  "  Franche  Comte  "  across  the  Ain  to  the 
Rhone  by  Lagnieu  in  Bugey ;  and  Thoire  along  the  Ain  to  the  north  of 
the  barony  of  Coligny.  There  were  also  the  lands  of  the  Archbishop 
of  Lyons  and  his  vassals  in  the  later  Bresse,  and  other  ecclesiastical 
magnates,  such  as  the  Abbots  of  Nantua,  St  Rambert  and  Ambronay 
in  north  Bugey^. 

To  the  west  there  were  only  two  important  neighbours,  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Vienne  and  the  Sires  de  la  Tour-du-Pin.  The  latter  were 
vassals  of  the  Church  of  Vienne.  Tour-du-Pin  itself  was  a  fief  from 
the  Viennois  nunnery  of  St  Peter*,  while  Lhuis  and  Bourgoin  may  have 
been  held  from  Savoy*.  The  Archbishop,  Guy,  a  brother  of  the  Anscarid 
Count  of  Burgundy,  was  then  leading  the  ecclesiastical  party  in  the 
whole  kingdom  and  was  also  engaged  in  vigorous  disputes  with  his 
fellow  Gregorian  Bishop,  St  Hugh  of  Grenoble,  over  the  pagus  of 
Sermorens,  which  each  prelate  claimed  for  his  own  diocese ^     St  Hugh 

^  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  Bishops,  too,  when  they  were  driven  out  of  their 
cathedral-city  in  the  sixteenth  centur}',  retired  to  Annecy  in  their  turn. 

2  Cf.  Menabrea,  op.  cit.  pp.  351-7. 

^  Guigue,  Topographie  hist,  de  la  dip'"-'  de  V Ain,  which  has  full  references  to 
authorities,  Guichenon,  Hist,  de  la  Bresse  et  Bugey,  and  Menabrea,  op.  cit.  pp.  370-6. 
Beaujeu  (Wurstemberger,  iv.  pp.  338  and  345)  and  Coligny  (Car.  Reg.  CDXiii.) 
certainly  held  part  of  their  lands  from  Saxoy  in  the  thirteenth  century.  It  may  not 
have  gone  farther  back  ;  but  was  it  a  condition  of  the  intermarriages  c.  1100?  The 
.Counts  of  Savoy,  like  those  of  Franche  Comte,  were  far  higher  in  the  feudal  scale  than 
these  local  Sires.     See  above,  pp.  77-8,  and  below,  p.  1^^,  n.  3,  and  pp.  422-3. 

^  See  Car.  Reg.  dcccxli.,  Wurstemberger,  iv.  197.  There  is  evidence  of  their 
liege  homage   to  Vienne  in    1228  (Guigue,    Cartul.   des  fiefs  de  PEglise  de   Lyou, 

P-  339)- 

*  See  above,  pp.   78  and  82. 

^  See  Jacob,  Bourgogne,  ixi-12,  'islz.nt.tytr,  NoUs  Additiojtnelles,  pp.  270-2,  and 
above,  p.   79. 


The  conquest  of  Tarentaise  269 

was  supported,  and  perhaps  the  quarrel  was  exacerbated,  by  Guigues  III, 
Count  of  Albon  and  Graisivaudan,  the  last  and  most  formidable 
neighbour  of  Humbert  II.  His  lands  stretched  across  the  southern 
Viennois  (i.e.  Albon')  to  the  Alps,  forming  the  southern  frontier  of 
Savoy:  and  he  possessed  a  small  fragment  of  Piedmont  beyond  the 
Mont-Genevre"^.  Thus  a  rivalry  between  the  Humbertines  and  the 
Guigonids  was  almost  necessitated  by  their  geographical  position,  a 
rivalry  which  lasted  as  long  as  the  Dauphine  (to  give  the  Guigonid 
lands  their  later  name)  existed  a  separate  state.  All  along  the  border 
the  same  nobles  probably  held  of  both  Humbertines  and  Guigonids '\ 
and  we  can  imagine  the  endless  disputes  the  circumstance  could  give 
rise  to. 

There  remains  one  neighbouring  territory  for  special  notice,  the 
county  of  Tarentaise  granted  by  Rudolf  III  to  its  Archbishop.  Now 
Amadeus  III  of  Savoy,  Humbert  II's  son,  was  doubtless  Count  of 
Tarentaise.  The  Viscount  Aimeric  de  Briangon  was  his  vassal*,  and 
he  took  the  spolia  of  the  deceased  archbishops*.  It  becomes  likely 
therefore  that  the  Humbertines  obtained  the  valley  in  the  eleventh 
century ;  and  we  are  tempted  for  once  to  put  trust  in  the  Chroniques  de 
Savoye.  These  narrate**  that  in  the  time  of  Humbert  II  the  Sire  de 
Briangon  levied  an  unjust  and  doubled  toll  on  all  who  passed  up  the 
valley  to  the  Little  St  Bernard  and  Humbert's  county  of  Aosta.  There- 
upon Count  Humbert  attacked  Briangon  and  quickly  forced  its  owner, 
not  only  to  remove  the  toll,  but  also  to  do  him  homage  for  his  lands. 
Nor  did  he  rest  there,  but  marched  up  Tarentaise,  where,  says  the 
Chronicler,  "there  was  none  to  do  justice,  but  the  greater  oppressed 
the  less";  and  subdued  the  whole  valley  to  his  dominion'.  A  certain 
confirmation  of  the  outline  of  this  story  is  given  by  the  fact  that  Aymon 
de    Briangon,    who    lived    c.    1060-90,    is    said    to    have    been    first 

'  Held  in  fief  from  the  Archbishop  of  Vienne.  See  above,  pp.  82-3.  The  title 
"Count  of  Vienne  "  was  not  taken  till  c.  1 170.     See  Manteyer,  op.  cit.  pp.  281-3. 

"^  See  above,  pp.  225,  227  and  258. 

^  Cf.  below,  p.  307. 

••  e.g.  Misc.  Valdostana,  B.S.S.S.  xvii.  135. 

'  Car.  Reg.  CCLXXXIV.  {Gallia  Christiana,  XH.  382). 

*  M.H.r.  Script,  n.  97,  and  Misc.  stor.  ital.  xxii.  309-10.  The  latter  version 
as  usual  has  a  slightly  more  sober  and  credible  colouring. 

^  "  Diebus  Umljerti  comitis  fuit  quidam  dominus  in  Brianzono  qui  noviter  possuit 
pedagium  super  transeuntes  per  fines  suos,  ita  ut  duplicaret  censum  quern  dare 
consueverant  transeuntes.... Indignatus  est  comes.  Dirigit  agerem  {sic,  ?aciem)  contra 
dominum  Brianzoni,... (comes)  ascendit  ad  vallem  Tarentasie,  in  qua  nullus  erat 
dominus  qui  justiciam  ministraret,  set  major  suffocabat  minorem,  illamque  patriam 
subjugavit,  illosque  qui  in  ilia  habitabant,  sibi  servire  coegit.... Dominus  Brianzoni... 
concordavit  se  cum  domino  Morianne  sibique  fecit  homagium "  (Misc.  stor.  ital. 
XXII.). 


270  Humbert  II 

Viscount  of  Tarentaise  ;  the  Archbishop  probably  had  a  Vidame,  not  a 
Viscount'.  Thus  the  Archbishop  of  Tarentaise's  case  would  resemble 
that  of  the  Bishop  of  Lausanne:  to  maintain  the  countship  was  beyond 
his  strength. 

The  result  was  to  add  another  county  to  the  Savoyard  dominions, 
together  with  the  Burgundian  approach  to  the  Little  St  Bernard  and 
the  control  of  another  see.  So  even  the  disasters  of  the  time  could 
not  prevent  a  rapid  risorgimento  under  Le  Renforce. 

Humbert's  death  occurred  too  soon  for  us  to  make  any  inferences 
from  the  marriages  of  his  sons  and  daughters,  but  his  own,  which  took 
place  before  1092^,  shows  that  he  remained  in  the  old  circle  of  alliances. 
His  wife  was  Gisela,  daughter  of  William  H,  Count  of  "  Franche 
Comte,"  and  sister  of  Archbishop  Guy  of  Vienne,  the  later  Pope 
Calixtus  n^.  Thus  she  was  a  relative  of  the  Franconian  Emperors,  as 
well  as  of  Agnes,  the  widow  of  Peter  L  After  Humbert's  death  she 
married  Ranier,  Marquess  of  Montferrat.  It  will  be  best  to  treat  of 
their  children  later,  but  there  is  a  genealogical  pleasure  in  recaUing 
here  that  through  her  his  present  Majesty  of  Italy  derives  from  the 
Carolingian  and  Anscarid  Kings  and  Emperors  of  his  renovated  realm. 

It  is  of  some  importance  to  examine  the  entourage  of  Humbert. 
We  find  the  three  guardians  of  his  son,  Aymon  I  of  the  Genevois, 
Guy  of  Miribel,  close  to  Lyons,  and  Conon  Bishop  of  Maurienne, 
all  presumably  personal  friends^;  Nantelm  de  Charbonnieres',  Aymon^ 
William  and  Otto  de  la  Chambre'',  all  of  Maurienne,  one  of  them  no 
doubt  its  viscount;  Guy  de  Chambery^  Nantelm  de  Miolans^  Guiffred 

1  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  5,  based  on  M.H.P.  Chart.  I.  178.  Also  Walter  de 
Brian9on  was  Humbert  IPs  vassal  in  109S  (Car.  Reg.  ccxxxiv.,  Carte... cTOulx, 
B.S.S.S.  XLV.  p.  59).  Cf.  above,  p.  99,  n.  10.  There  existed  in  the  thirteenth 
century  a  toll  of  Brian^on,  which  was  really  the  subject  of  disputes  between  the  Sire 
de  Brian9on  and  the  men  of  Ugines.  The  Sire  de  Brian9on  claimed  that  it  had 
existed  "a  longo  et  longissimo  tempore,"  and  it  was  finally  adjudged  that  the  men  of 
Ugines  were  only  liable  to  pay  half  of  the  customary  sum  (Ct.  A.  Foras,  Le  piage 
de  Bria7i(on,  Compte  Rendu,  Congres  Soc.  Sav.  Savoisennes,  iv.  pp.  113  ff.).  It  is 
obvious  that  the  doubled  toll  has  a  connection  with  this;  and  1  imagine  the  later 
dispute  has  been  confused  with  the  vague  tradition  of  oppression. 

-  Car.  Sup.  XXVII.  (Cipolla,  Monumenta  N'ovalicietisia,  i.  224-5). 

3  Car.  Sup.  xxvii.  (see  above,  n.  2)  ;  CCLV.  (Chevalier,  Cartul.  St  Andri-le-bas, 
Vierme,  p.  281). 

*  Car.  Reg.  CCXLVI.  (Guigue,  Petit  Cartul.  de  St  Sulpice  en  Bugey,  p.  29); 
ccxxxil.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  27).  Perhaps  we  should  add  Rudolf,  Sire  de 
Faucigny,  who  appears  with  Humbert  in  1092  (Car.  Sup.  xxvii.,  read  Fulciniaco  for 
Filemasco)  and  c.  i  roo  (Car.  Reg.  CCXLII.). 

5  Car.  Reg.  ccxxxil.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  27). 

^  See  above,  n.  5. 

'  Car.  Sup.  XXVII.     (See  above,  n.  2.) 

8  Car.  Sup.  XXVII.     (See  above,  n.  2.)  ®  See  above,  n.  2. 


Humbert  II's  ecclesiastical  policy  271 

de  Bogis\  all  of  Savoy  proper,  Guy  being  probably  viscount  of  Savoy, 
and  Nantelm  of  north  Maurienne ;  Humbert ^  AymonS  and  William* 
de  Boczozel  in  Sermorens;  Geoffrey  de  Grammont  in  Belley;  Walter  de 
Briangon',  probably  viscount  of  Tarentaise;  Boso  de  Chatillon  the 
viscount,  Everard  de  Bard,  William  de  Montjoux,  Peter  de  la  Porte 
St  Ours,  all  of  Aosta®.  These  names  show  clearly  that  Humbert  H 
was  quite  capable  of  exacting  feudal  service  from  his  greatest  vassals 
for  they  occur  in  charters  for  the  most  part  some  distance  away  from 
their  lands.  It  is  only  the  Aostan  nobles  who  are  not  met  with  outside 
their  native  district '. 

So,  too,  we  find  the  Count  evidently  able  to  exact  his  albergariae. 
He  dates  from  La  Cham  bra,  the  viscount's  castle  in  Maurienne,  and 
from  a  private  house  at  Yenned  The  term  feodum,  one  may  note, 
first  occurs  in  his  time*. 

(iii)  Coming  to  Humbert's  ecclesiastical  policy  in  Burgundy,  we 
find  him  much  like  other  strong  princes.  He  is  on  good  terms  with 
all  his  bishops'",  with  the  possible  exception  of  him  of  Belley,  who  does 
not  occur  in  his  documents ;  but  he  exacted  to  the  full  his  feudal  and 
regalian  rights.  Even  St  Anselm,  his  kinsman  and  personally  obliged 
to  him,  hints  that  he  regarded  the  church  in  his  dominion  as  under 
his  hereditary  rule'^  Another  source  of  power  was  his  advocacy  of 
the  neighbouring  Cluniac  priory  of  St  Victor  of  Geneva,  which  was 
perhaps  connected  with  his  mother's  dower'^,  and  which  he  seems  to 
have  handed  on  to  his  son". 

The  Count  does  not  appear  to  have  been  inclined  to  dower  the 

older  monasteries  in  his  lands";  but  he  was  alive  to  the  advantage  of 

founding  new  ones  in  unreclaimed  or  disorderly  territory.     Besides  he 

was  religious  and  an  admirer  of  St  Hugh  of  Grenoble '^     No  less  than 

^  See  above,  p.  270,  n.  ^. 

*  See  above,  p.  270,  n.  2;  also  Car.  J?eg:  CCXL.  {M.H.P.  Chart.  I.  728). 
^  Car.  Reg.  ccxxxiv.  (Carte. ..cTOulx,  p.  59). 

''  See  above,  n.  3. 

^  Car.  Reg.  ccxxxii.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  27). 

*  See  above,  n.  3. 

^  See  above,  n.  2,  Car.  Reg.  CCXL.     On  all  these  families  see  Menabrea,  op.  cit. 
^  Car.  Sup.  xxvii.,  Car.  Reg.  ccxxxil. 

*  Car.  Reg.  CCXLII.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  44),  "quorum  feudum  est."  It  was 
an  alod  of  Humbert  II. 

*"  Cf.  Car.  Reg.  CCXLI.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  25). 

"  Car.  Reg.  cc.xxxvii.  (see  above,  p.  265,  n.  5),  where  the  words  are  given. 

^^  See  above,  p.  242  and  p.  85.  Cf.  M.  C.  Guigue,  Topographie  historique  de 
I'Ain,  p.  xxxvi. 

'^  See  below,  p.  296,  n.  2. 

'■•  Cf.  Car.  Reg.  ccxxxn.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  27). 

''  See  below,  p.  294,  n.  5,  and  cf.  his  grant  to  the  Bishop,  Car.  Reg.  CMXLVU. 
(Marion,  Carlul.  de  Grenoble,  p.  215). 


272  Humbert  II 

three  such  arose  on  his  domains.  They  were  Bellevaux  in  Les  Bauges^ 
founded  by  Nantelm  de  Miolans  on  a  fief  held  from  the  Count;  Aulphs. 
in  New-Chablais,  founded  by  Gerard  d'AUinge  and  Gillion  de  Rovoree, 
equally  on  their  fiefs  from  the  Count;  and  Innimont  in  Belley,  a  Cluniac 
Priory,  founded  by  Humbert  II  himself^  The  document  concerning 
Bellevaux  has  considerable  interest  of  its  own  ;  for  besides  certain  gifts, 
the  Count  cedes  to  the  new  abbey  both  feudal  jurisdiction  and  the 
privilege  of  holding  all  land  acquired  from  his  own  alods  or  comital 
benefice  as  an  alod.  One  reason  for  the  latter  grant  would  be  the 
greater  prosperity  of  an  abbey  freed  from  feudal  service  and  feudal 
burdens;  further,  when  land  was  given  by  a  vassal,  the  ultimate  lord 
would  not  lose  much,  for  all  feudal  ties  were  thus  snapped  together, 
and  the  abbey  remained  liable  to  the  influence  of  the  ruler  of  the 
country.  But,  taken  in  conjunction  with  the  grant  of  jurisdiction,  it 
is  still  more  important.  Here  the  Count  makes  an  unreserved  grant 
of  all  criminal  jurisdiction  and  profits,  including  those  from  the 
judicial  duel,  which  was  the  method  of  deciding  questions  of  landed 
property  and  of  feudal  "treason."  This  right  extended  over  all  the 
men  of  the  Abbey,  and  thus  we  have  a  distinct  grant  of  immunity. 
At  the  same  time  there  is  no  hint  that  the  Count  is  henceforth 
wholly  excluded  from  the  Abbey's  territory;  and  the  only  footing 
he  could  henceforth  have  would  be  derived  from  his  position  as  a 
public  official,  his  "consulate,"  which  he  especially  records.  It  is 
another  sign  that  the  Counts  did  not  forget  they  were  not  mere 
landowners'^. 

(iv)  More  difficult  to  discuss,  because  more  doubtful  in  its  results,, 
is  Humbert  Il's  action  in  Italy,  what  claims  he  made,  what  steps  he 
took  to  make  his  claims  good,  and  what  success  rewarded  him.  His 
claims  are  the  easiest  to  deal  with^  for  he  states  them  in  his  titles. 


^  Car.  Reg.  CCXLI.,  CCXLII.  (Guichenon,  Prenves,  p.  44),  and  CCXLiil.  (id, 
p.  28). 

-  Car.  Neg.  CCXT.I.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  25).  The  charter  says:  "Ipse  nobilis 
comes  Humbertus...donavit...banni  infractum  et  legem  de  omni  forlsfacto  quod 
facient  homines  S.  Mariae  [Bellae  vallis];  verbi  gratia,  si  homo  S.  Mariae  firma- 
verit  duellum  et  ceciderit,  monachi  habebunt  legem,  item,  emendationem  victi 
sui  hominis;  si  percusserit  aliquem  vel  fecerit  alicui  quod  non  decet,  percusso  de 
injuria  rectum  faciet  et  Priori  legem,  quam  solebat  dare,  homo  S.  Mariae  dabit. 
Vel  quicumque  alius  de  suo  allodio,  idem  de  consulari  fisco  dedissent  vel  daturi 
essent,  laudavit  ut  omni  tempore,  sicut  liberum  et  proprium  allodium,  praefata. 
ecclesia  et  habitatores  illius  possiderent  jure  perpetuo."  See  Menabrea,  op.  ciL 
pp.  492-501.  For  the  meaning  of  the  latter  grant,  cf.  Car.  Reg.  CCLXII.  [Misc, 
Valdostana,  B.S.S.S.  xvii.  p.  85),  "quicumque  homo  vel  femina  terram  meam 
habuerit,  si  terram  illam  praefate  ecclesie  dare  voluerit,  ecclesia  ilia  per  alodium 
imperpetuum  firmiter  possideat." 


Humbert   II   in   Italy  273 

While  in  all  his  earlier  documents^,  and  usually  in  the  later  ones, 
he  only  takes  the  style  of  Comes;  there  are  three  decisive  exceptions. 
In  IC97  he  calls  himself  Comes  atque  Marchisus- ;  between  iioo  and 
1 1 03  the  Aostan  St  Anselm  of  Canterbury  addresses  him  as  Comes  et 
Marchio^;  and  in  the  foundation  of  Aulphs  he  is  Comes  et  Marchio^. 
It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  he  asserted,  if  only  from  time  to  time,  his 
claim  to  Adelaide's  inheritance,  for  which  Marquess  was  the  most 
suitable  style.  That  he  did  not  always  take  it  may  be  attributed  to 
a  lingering  consciousness  that  the  title,  save  in  the  case  of  descent 
through  males  like  that  of  the  Romagnano,  required  a  fresh  investiture 
from  the  Emperor. 

Humbert's  claim,  therefore,  seems  to  have  been  to  succeed  to  the 
mark  of  Turin  as  Adelaide's  heir.  It  is  likely  that  from  the  first  he 
had  the  support  of  the  great  abbeys  of  the  county  of  Turin.  At  any 
rate  on  the  19th  February,  1092  we  find  him  granting  an  ample  charter 
of  confirmation  to  Novalesal  He  was  then  at  La  Chambre,  but  seems 
not  to  have  crossed  the  Alps".  Did  he  make  an  attack  from  the  side  of 
Aosta  ?  A  tale,  according  to  which  the  Henrician  Bishop  of  Aosta  was 
driven  from  his  see  and  his  Gregorian  successor  contrived  to  capture  the 
Henrician  Bishop  of  Ivrea,  refers,  it  appears,  to  the  Bishops  of  Augsburg''. 
Then  there  is  a  charter,  dated  at  Altessano  near  Turin  the  15th  Septem- 
ber, 1094,  by  which  a  Humbert,  son  of  Amadeus,  of  Roman  law,  grants 
to  the  Canons  of  Sta  Maria  d'lvrea  and  S-  Salvatore  of  Turin  a  series 
of  lands  in  the  Canavese,  close  to  Castellamonte.  Now  is  this  Hum- 
bert II  or  a  Count  of  the  Canavese  ?    Some  of  the  lands  had  once  been 

^  For  Car.  Reg.  ccxxv.  (=  Sup.  xxvill.,  Cipolla,  Monmnenta  Noval.  i.  226), 
which,  dating  1093,  has  "  Itahae  Marchio,"  is  adjudged  a  forgery  by  Count  Cipolla, 
loc.  cit. 

2  Car.  Reg.  CCXXXII.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  27). 

^  Car.  Reg.  ccxxxvil.  (Migne,  CLIX.  102). 

*  Car.  Reg.  CCXLII.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  44,  Besson  (ed.  1871),  P-  337). 
St  Anselm's  letter  allows  us  to  trust  in  Guichenon's  and  the  cartularies'  accuracy. 
Further  support  may  be  gained  from  the  bad  term  Marchisus,  an  actual  variant 
for  Marchio  at  the  time  (see  Rondolino,  Boll.  stor.  bibl.  subalp.,  Anno  vi.,  pp.  280-1), 
yet  unlikely  to  be  slipped  in  by  a  later  scribe  used  to  the  almost  invariable  official 
iMarchio.  In  Guichenon's  text  there  are  inserted  the  predicates  Mauriennae  and  in 
Italia,  but  these  must  be  interpolations,  and  are  actually  added  in  a  modern  copy  in 
the  State  Archives  at  Turin. 

^  Car.  Sup.  xxvil.  (Cipolla,  Monumenta  Noval.  I.  224).  See  above,  p.  266, 
n.   2. 

«  Car.  Reg.  ccxxxiv.  (Carte... (TOulx,  B.S.S.S.  XLV.  p.  59),  describes  Humbert 
in  1098  "post  obitum  Adelaide  comitisse  quando  dominus  Ubertus  ingressus  est 
Longobardiam,"  which  implies  he  had  not  entered  Italy  before  1098. 

^  The  Aostan  view  was  put  forward  by  Savio,  I  primi  conti  f/^..  Misc.  di  stor. 
ital.  XXVI.  472-6.  It  is  combated  by  Meyer  von  Knonau,  Heinrich  IV,  iv.  401, 
n.   18  and   19. 

P.  O.  18 


274  Humbert  II 

given  to  Fruttuaria  by  Otto- William.  Later  the  Counts  of  Savoy  are 
suzerains  of  Castellamonte  and  the  Canavese.  The  donation  is  extra- 
ordinarily large  for  one  of  these  minor  Counts.  Humbert  II  could  have 
claims  in  right  of  his  wife  Gisela.  Why  is  Humbert  II's  Savoyard 
entourage  absent?  and  yet  there  is  a  witness  Ponzo  de  Camoseto, 
whose  name  might  well  be  Savoyard,  Ponce  de  Chamousset.  The 
question  seems  insoluble  at  present.  In  case  Humbert  11  is  the  donor, 
we  must,  I  think,  presuppose  a  successful  campaign,  subduing  the 
Canavese,  but  falling  short  of  Turin,  which  was  the  origin  of  the  later 
suzerainty  over  the  Canavese  ^ 

However  this  may  be,  Humbert  II  crossed  the  Mont  Cenis  to  Susa 
in  the  spring  of  1098.  He  at  once  conciliated  the  Canons  of  Oulx  by 
a  charter  of  confirmation-.  He  found,  however,  a  hard  task  before  him. 
Boniface  del  Vasto  held  the  south  of  the  mark;  Turin  and  its  Bishop 
were  independent.  Naturally  he  looked  about  for  allies,  and  found  a 
possible  one  in  the  city  of  Asti,  which  now,  having  reduced  its  Bishop 
to  a  position  somewhat  analogous  to  that  of  a  constitutional  king  in 
these  days,  was  carrying  on  war  with  Boniface.  The  latter's  power  in 
Bredolo  would  be  one  reason  for  this  hostility,  and  the  usual  vexatious 
interference  with  commerce,  which  nobles  of  a  contado  practised,  would 
be  another.  On  the  25th  July,  1098,  a  bargain  was  struck,  and  the 
relative  position  of  the  parties  is  shown  by  the  hard  conditions  prescribed 
to  the  Count.  He  was  to  cede  to  the  church  of  Asti  S.  Dalmazzo, 
Brusaporcelli,  Boves  and  Sommariva,  and  to  the  citizens  of  Asti 
Romanisio  and  Quattordio.  It  is  true  he  possessed  none  of  these; 
they  were  (save  Quattordio)  in  his  rival's  marquessate.  But  he  was 
also  to  give  free  passage  and  safe  conduct  to  the  Astigians  across  the 
passes  and  through  all  his  land,  in  accordance  of  course  with  the 
Emperor  Conrad's  privilege.  He  was  to  campaign  with  them  three 
times  a  year  as  far  as  S.  Dalmazzo  and  Tortona.  For  three  years, 
according  to  the  document  as  it  now  reads,  he  was  not  to  be  absent 
for  more  than  eight  days  from  Lombardy  without  the  leave  of  the 
Astigian  Consuls.  Lastly,  he  was  to  make  neither  peace  nor  war  with 
Boniface  del  Vasto  without  the  Consuls'  consent^.     These  were  the 

^  Car.  Keg.  ccxxvii.  {Carte... arcivescovili  cflvrea,  I.  B.S.S.S.  v.  p.  13).  For 
the  commentary,  ascribing  it  to  Humbert  II,  see  Savio,  I  primi  conti  ecc,  Misc.  stor. 
ital.  XXVI.  471-6;  ascribing  it  to  a  Count  of  the  Canavese,  see  Gabotto,  Un  millennio 
di  storia  eporediese,  B.S.S.S.  iv.  pp.  43-4- 

■■'  Car.  Reg.  ccxxxiv.  {Carte... d' Oulx,  B.S.S.S.  XLV.  p.  59).  Savio,  op.  cit. 
p.  472,  makes  the  year  1097;  reckoned  in  Pisan  fashion  as  1098 — it  is  ab  incarnatione 
— thus  agreeing  with  the  Indiction  v.  But  one  does  not  expect  the  Pisan  year  at 
Susa,  the  Indictions  are  frequently  wrong,  and  there  are  two  other  Italian  documents 
of  Humbert,  dated  in  1098. 

^  "Comes  quidem   Ubertus  magno  pro  amore  ac  dilectione  quam  habet  civibus 


Abortive  treaty  with  Asti  275 

terms,  but  there  is  no  sign  they  were  carried  out  or  ratified.  No 
binding  instrument  remains  of  the  transaction;  but  only  a  draft  of  the 
terms  in  the  Astigian  City  Register,  and  that  probably  somewhat 
interpolated  in  later  times  ^ 

I  think  this  circumstance  shows  that  Count  Humbert  shrank 
eventually  from  the  portentous  concessions  demanded  of  him,  and 
pursued  a  separate  policy,  perhaps  using  the  rapprochement  with  Asti 
to  frighten  Boniface.  It  is  to  be  suspected  also  that  he  found  it  best 
to  gain  allies  by  similar,  but  less,  surrenders.  By  the  29th  November, 
1098,  he  had  won  over  the  two  great  monasteries  of  Chiusa  and  Pinerolo, 
for  being  on  that  day  in  the  claustrum  of  the  first  in  S.  Ambrogio,  he 
made  a  grant  to  the  second.  This  consisted  of  all  his  claims  in 
Frossasco,  and  the  act  was  witnessed  by  Merlo  of  Avigliana  and  Merlo 
of  Piossasco^.     Thus  Humbert  had  made  his  way  to  the  mouth  of  the 

Astensibus  dedit  et  investivit...et  manu  propria  sacravit  ad  augmentum  Astensis 
episcopatus  loca  que  ita  nominantur  et  hec  sunt,  S.  Dalmacius,  Bruxaporcellus, 
Bovisium  et  Summaripa;  Romanisium  vero  atque  Quatordeum  ad  communem  utili- 
tatem  atque  honorem  omnium  civium  Astensium.  Insuper  pedagium  et  clusagium 
atque  curadiam  et  quicquid  dant  pro  transitu  itineris  omnem  per  terram  quam  habet 
atque  habiturus  est  et  ultra  montes  et  ex  hac  parte  montium.  Similiter  personas 
omnium  civium  Astensium  et  mobilia  eorum   salvare  et  stratam  ad  eos  dirigere  in 

sempiterna  secula Et  neque  pacem  neque  guerram   neque   finem  cum   Bonefacio 

marchione  debet  facere  absque  consilio  et  voluntate  Astensium  consulum." 

^  Car.  Reg.  ccxxxv.  (Sella,  Cod.  Astens.  de  Malabayla,  ii.  p.  747).  For  the 
political  situation  and  discussion  of  the  document  see  Gabotto,  Asti  e  la  politica 
sabauda,  B.S.S.S.  xviii.  pp.  9-12.  The  reasons  in  favour  of  its  substantial  genuineness 
are  :  (i)  its  form — no  forgery  would  be  so  exceedingly  informal  and  invalid ;  (ii)  its 
language  and  general  tenor — the  place  held  by  the  episcopatus  and  cives  Astenses  (cf. 
above,  p.  256) ;  (iii)  the  war  with  Boniface ;  (iv)  that  the  Count's  concessions  are 
not  unlikely.  S.  Dalmazzo  had  been  held  by  Adelaide  (see  above,  p.  250) ;  Sommariva 
by  Immilla  (see  above,  p.  158) ;  Romanisio  by  the  Romagnano  (see  above,  p.  152) : 
there  is  no  reason  to  deny  Humbert  had  claims  on  Boves,  Brusaporcello  and 
Quattordio  even.  Many  other  possessions  of  the  Ardoinids  are  known  to  us  only  by 
the  charters  which  gave  them  away.  On  the  other  hand,  the  clause  "Et  ad  populum 
Astensem  cartulam  ad  proprium  per  donationem  de  Romanisio  et  Quatordeo  facere 
debet  per  bonam  fidem  et  observare,"  has  a  suspicious  ring  with  its  reference  to  the 
"  populus  Astensis."  So  also  have  the  stringent  clauses  concerning  the  Count's 
residence  in  Piedmont.  That  the  treaty  was  never  formally  completed,  see  Carutti, 
Kegesta,  loc.  cit.  In  fact  on  the  face  of  it,  the  document  is  a  demand  presented  by 
the  Astigian  Consuls,  "  Dignum  dixerunt  consules  Astenses  simul  cum  vasallis  pro 
communi  utilitate  et  pro  incremento  ecclesie  S.  Marie  et  honoris  communis  civium 
Astensium,  amicari  et  conjungi  federe  sempiterno  cum  honorabili  et  magno  duce 
Uberto,  taliter,  etc."  The  vassalli  are  probably  interpolated.  The  Count  is  also  to 
make  out  a  charter  of  gift  to  the  Astigian  church ;  which  does  not  exist ;  no  doubt  he 
never  did  so. 

"^  Car.  Reg.  ccxxxvi.  {Cartario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  II.  p.  42).  This  must 
have  succeeded,  as  it  naturally  would,  his  lost  charter  to  S.  Giusto  di  Susa,  with 
its  grant  of  land.     See  above,  p.   202    and  n.  2.     He   also   made  a  grant    to   the 


276  Humbert   II 

Val  di  Susa  and  had  secured  the  homage  of  two  of  the  great  famiUes  of 
the  plain.  Monastic  support  was  evidently  his  chief  resource.  In  11 00 
we  find  him  in  the  Val  d'Aosta,  making  a  grant,  including  universa 
justitia  sua  in  the  area  he  gave,  to  Fruttuaria\  A  similar  complete 
cession  of  Giaveno  appears  to  have  been  made  by  him  in  his  lost 
charter  of  1103  to  S.  Michele  della  Chiusa'. 

The  grant  to  Chiusa  is  the  last  direct  piece  of  evidence  we  have  of 
Humbert's  activity  in  Lombardy  or  indeed  elsewhere.  But  about  this 
time  he  must  have  founded  the  mint  of  Susa,  probably  to  replace  that 
of  Aiguebelle  with  its  flagrant  disregard  of  the  rights  of  the  Archbishop 
of  Vienne^.  The  new  mint  also  emphasized  his  power  in  Italy,  although 
doubtless  it  was  a  usurpation  of  the  royal  prerogative^  In  result,  it 
seems  that  he  had  made  good  his  claim  to  the  Val  di  Susa,  and  obtained 
an  indefinite  influence  in  Piedmont  through  a  kind  of  patronage  of  the 
abbeys  of  Pinerolo  and  Chiusa,  the  domains  of  which  extended  over 
the  plain.  The  same  may  be  said  of  S.  Giusto  di  Susa,  but  over  that 
foundation  he  could  exercise  some  rights  of  government.  There  was 
the  receptum  comitale  for  instance ^  But  the  extent  of  his  successes  is 
difficult  to  gauge,  for  we  cannot  well  separate  them  from  those  of  his  son, 
Amadeus  III. 

By  his  marriage  with  Gisela,  Humbert  II  had  four  sons  and  two 
daughters.      The   sons  were  Amadeus    III,    his   successor,   William ^ 

Provostship  of  Rivalta;  see  Car.  Reg.  cCLXXXix.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  34). 
Amadeus  III  speaks  of  the  "bona  quae  a  meo  patre  primitus  ac  etiam  a  me  donata 
sunt." 

^  Car.  Keg.  ccxL.  (M.H.P.  Chart,  l.  728).  The  grant  of  jurisdiction  is  an 
evidence  of  the  practice  of  the  day  in  Aosta. 

2  It  is  mentioned,  and  its  date  (21  June,  1103)  given  in  Count  Thomas'  confirma- 
tion and  renewal  made  in  1209  (Car.  Reg.  CDXXiii.,  Claretta,  Storia...di  S.  Michele 
della  Chiusa,  p.  226,  Doc.  ill.)  "donationem  nobilis  quondam  Humbertus  filius 
quondam  Amedei  comitis  fecerat." 

^  See  above,  pp.  124  and  224-5. 

*  Promis,  Aloyiete  dei  reali  di  Savoia,  I.  60-1.  Denarii  Secusienses  are  first 
referred  to  in  1104  and  then  in  1109  {Carte... d'Oulx,  B.S.S.S.  XLV.  p.  94);  and 
clearly  they  would  not  be  first  struck  during  Amadeus  Ill's  minority.  Besides  there 
exist  Susian  coins  of  two  Humberts.     The  older  should  be  Humbert  II's. 

®  Car.  Reg.  ccxciv.  (Cipolla,  Le  piii  antiche  carte  di  S.  Giusto  di  Susa,  Bull. 
Istit.  stor.  ital.  18,  p.  94). 

^  Car.  Reg.  ccxlv.  (Billiet  et  Albrieux,  Charles  de  Maurietifie  [Docs.  Acad. 
Savoie  li.]  p.  20)  "Laudantibus  matre  mea  Gisla  et  fratribus  meis  Guillelmo  atque 
Umberto."  Savio,  I primi  conti,  477-9,  suggests  these  two  may  be  sons  of  William 
of  Montferrat  and  only  half-brothers  of  Amadeus  III.  He  argues  11 11  is  the  date  of 
the  charter  which  is  only  dated  "regnante  Henrico  Imperatore"  without  a  year;  and 
Henry  V  was  only  crowned  Emp.  in  11 11.  But  Henry  IV  was  reigning  Emperor  in 
1 104;  and  the  other  elements  of  the  date  20  Oct.  and  Luna  xxvii.  are  exactly  right 
for  1104,  while  in  11 11  20  Oct.  was  the  XV.  day  of  the  moon.  And  why  should 
Amadeus  Ill's  step-brothers  laudare  in  Maurienne? 


Humbert  I  Is  children  and  death  277 

Humbert'  and  Raynald.  Raynald  became  Provost  of  St  Maurice, 
but  he  leaves  the  impression  of  a  very  secularly  minded  personl  Of 
William  and  Humbert  nothing  further  seems  to  be  known  than  their 
names.  In  any  case  they  left  no  children  to  claim  a  share  in  the 
Savoyard  inheritance^.  The  two  daughters  were  Adelaide,  who  was  to 
marry  Louis  VI  the  Fat  of  France^  and  Agnes,  wife  of  Archembald  VII, 
Sire  de  Bourbon'.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  Humbert's  daughters,  like 
those  of  Amadeus  III,  took  the  title  of  Countess,  an  evidence,  of  course, 
of  the  Savoyard  claim  to  the  Ardoinid  inheritance,  by  which  all  female 
agnates  were  so  styled. 

Humbert  II  died  on  the  19th  October,  1103^  He  cannot  have 
been  an  old  man.  His  eldest  son  was  still  a  minor  in  1108,  that  is, 
under  fifteen  years  of  age;  and  one  may  doubt  whether  Humbert  II 
himself,  probably  a  third  child,  was  born  before  1070''.  It  may  seem 
we  know  too  little  of  him  to  say  anything  about  his  character;  but  the 
man  must  have  had  ability  to  steer  through  such  a  ruinous  time  with 
such  success.  He  was  clearly  recognizing  the  growth  of  feudal  juris- 
diction by  his  definite  grants  of  it  to  monasteries;  and  it  was  the  best 
thing  to  do,  for  he  thus  strengthened  sure  helpers  by  giving  them  the 
powers  of  which  others  had  already  become  possessed.  It  is  of  course 
impossible  to  speak  in  other  than  vague  terms  of  the  growth  of  feudal- 
ism in  Savoy,  to  the  extent  of  which  we  find  documentary  evidence  in 

^  See  above,  p.   276,  n.  6. 

^  See  below,  pp.  297,  317-18. 

3  They  were  still  living?  c.  1125  (see  below,  p.  301,  n.  3).  Guichenon,  //tst.  de  la 
roy.  maison  de  Savoie,  p.  218,  makes  William  Bishop  of  Liege,  Humbert  die  in  1130, 
and  gives  another  brother,  Guy,  Abbot  of  Namur  and  Canon  of  Liege;  but  there 
seems  no  trace  of  a  Savoyard  Bishop  of  Liege  at  this  time,  though  there  was  a  William 
of  Savoy  Bishop  of  Liege  in  1238,  who  had  a  brother  Humbert.  And  possibly  these 
two  have  been  confused  with  their  great-great-uncles.  Of  Guy  there  seems  to  be  no 
evidence  at  any  time.  See  Savio,  /  primi  conti  ecc.  p.  479,  and  Aeginii  Gesta 
episcoporutn  Leodiens.,  M.G.H.  .Script,  xxv.  94-103. 

■*  See  below,  p.  281. 

5  Car.  Reg.  cccxxv.  (Bouquet,  xvi.  p.  13).  Louis  VII  calls  her  "matertera 
nostra."  Her  name  is  given  in  a  charter  of  1152,  "Domini  Archembaudi  de 
Borbonio  et  Agnetis  illustris  comitisse,  Archimbaudi  junioris  eorum  filii."  La  Mure, 
Hist,  des  Dues  de  Bourltott,  III.  Supp.  p.  27. 

«  Car.  Reg.  CCXLIV.  and  Sup.  xxxi.  {Ob.  S. /oh.  Maur.  Billiet  et  Albrieux, 
Charles  de  Maurimne,  p.  350).  The  attribution  of  the  obit  is  fixed  by  E.  Mallet 
{Documents  genevois . . .pour  la  g^nMlogie...de  la  Maison  de  Savoie,  Mem.  Accad. 
Scienze  Torino,  Ser.  11.  Vol.  xvi.  pp.  120-3).  The  year  is  given  by  Guichenon, 
I.  p.  216.  He  was  certainly  alive  on  the  21st  June,  1103  (see  above,  p.  276,  n.  2), 
and  dead  by  the  20th  October,  1104.     (See  below,  p.  278.) 

He  was  buried  according  to  the  Chroniques  in  the  cathedral  of  Moutiers  in  the 
Tarentaise. 

^  See  above,  pp.  206-7,  211-13,  242-3. 


278  Humbert  II 

Humbert's  charters.  But  we  may  conjecture  that  the  series  of  boy-rulers 
after  Oddo  I's  death  in  1060  witnessed  the  greatest  strides  towards  the 
new  state  of  affairs.  Humbert's  cue  was  to  make  use  of  the  Church,  with 
which  he  was  on  good  terms;  and  by  that  policy  and  by  those  abilities 
of  his  of  which  we  know  nothing,  he  kept  together  his  Burgundian 
dominions;  he  added  to  them  Tarentaise;  he  maintained  his  Italian 
claims  and  held  irrevocably  for  his  House  that  Val  di  Susa  out  of  which, 
by  their  unwearied  tenacity  and  by  their  hereditary  political  genius,  the 
kingdom  of  Italy  was  at  length  to  grow. 


Section  II.    Amadeus  Ill's  early  life  and  wars. 

The  rule  of  Amadeus  III  falls  easily,  if  somewhat  roughly,  under 
four  headings.  The  first  deals  with  the  period  lasting  from  his  acces- 
sion till  about  the  year  11 20.  During  this  part  of  his  life  he  is  a 
Burgundian  Count  and  a  Crusader.  It  is  a  time  of  immaturity,  perhaps 
of  crime.  The  second  links  together  his  serious  ambitions,  his  wars 
with  his  neighbours,  and  the  reconquest  of  the  mark  of  Turin.  The 
third  treats  of  his  share  in  the  monastic  revival  of  the  Cistercians.  In 
the  fourth  are  grouped  the  few  facts  we  know  of  his  civil  government ; 
and  I  conclude  with  a  kind  of  epilogue  on  his  second  crusade  and 
death.  This  arrangement  has  its  defects  and  is  open  to  the  charge  of 
artificiality,  but  it  helps  to  put  some  order  into  the  straggling  series  of 
events  we  have  to  deal  with. 

Amadeus  III,  being  still  a  minor  at  his  father's  death,  was  placed 
under  guardianship.  In  one  document^  there  appear  three  advocates 
of  the  county,  of  his  mother  and  his  brothers,  viz.  Conon,  Bishop  of 
Maurienne,  Aymon  I,  Count  of  the  Genevois,  and  Guy  de  Miribel :  but 
on  the  2nd  May,  1108,  we  only  hear  of  a  single  Tutor  of  the  Count, 
Aymon,  Count  of  the  Genevois''^.  At  first  there  seems  to  have  been  a 
period  without  a  guardian,  however,  for  on  the  20th  Oct.,  1104, 
Amadeus  III,  with  his  mother's  and  brothers'  consent,  makes  a  grant  to 
the  Canons  of  Maurienne  ^  Gisela  was  of  course  the  real  ruler.  The 
grant  hints  a  reason  why  Archbishop  Guy  of  Vienne,  the  Count's  uncle, 
was  not  called  in ;  for  it  is  dated  regnante  He?irico  imperatore.  Thus  it 
had  been  decided  to  stand  by  Henry  IV  if  only  in  a  platonic  way,  and 
this  was  the  very  antithesis  to  Guy's  proceedings.  What  exact  position 
was  taken  up  by  the  regents  when  Henry  V  deposed  his  unhappy  father 

1  Car.  lieg.  CCXLVi.  (Guigue,  Petit  Cartul.  de  St  Sulpice  en  Biigey,  p.  29).     The 
dating  place  is  really  Yennae  —  Yenne,  not  Geneva,  see  loc.  cit. 
^  Car.  /"<?§.  ccxLVii.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  29). 
^  Car.  Reg.  CCXLV.  (Billiet  et  Albrieux,  Chartc.de  Maurienne,  p.  20). 


Amadeus   III   and  the  Empire  279 

and  then  continued  the  strife  with  the  Papacy,  over  a  dispute  which 
was  becoming  more  and  more  limited  to  the  question  of  investitures,  it 
is  hard  to  say.  But  although  Pope  Paschal  II  crossed  into  Italy  by 
the  Mont  Cenis  in  August,  1107,  after  his  sojourn  in  France,  and  the 
Bishops  of  Savoy  attended  his  court  at  Lyons  S  there  is  no  evidence 
that  Amadeus  III  did  so.  In  May  1108  a  document  of  St  Maurice, 
importing  the  foundation  of  the  new  Abbey  of  Abbondance,  is  dated 
regnante  rege  Henrico'" :  and  though  Henry's  kingship  was  recognized  by 
the  Pope,  one  would  not  expect  his  reign  to  be  mentioned  in  an  ecclesi- 
astical document. 

The  same  dubious  loyalty  to  the  Empire  seems  to  be  observed  by 
Amadeus,  now  his  own  master,  during  Henry  V's  first  campaign  in 
Italy  in  mo.  The  King  used  to  the  full  the  advantage  of  this  semi- 
friendliness.  While  part  of  his  army  went  by  the  Brenner,  he  himself 
crossed  the  Great  St  Bernard  through  Amadeus'  lands,  and  took  Lom- 
bardy  between  two  fires.  Almost  all  north  Italy  submitted,  save  only 
Milan ;  and  the  King  proceeded  to  his  strange  abortive  treaty  with 
Paschal  II,  his  kidnapping  of  the  Pope  in  February  iiii  and  his 
extorted  coronation  in  April  11 11.  Paschal  II  was  forced  to  purchase 
freedom  by  the  pravilegium  which  granted  that  the  prelates  of  the  Empire 
should  only  be  consecrated  after  investiture  by  the  Emperor:  and 
Henry  retreated  to  Germany  in  momentary  triumph. 

Of  Amadeus  III  in  all  these  proceedings  there  is  no  trace.  His 
name  appears  in  no  genuine  imperial  document^;  and  while  a  grant 
of  his  own  seems  to  date  from  February  mo,  in  which  he  recognizes 
Henry  V's  reign  and  mentions  his  dissension  with  the  Pope^,  there  is  no 

^  See  Jacob,  Bourgogne,  pp.  1 10-12;  Bishop  Conon  of  Maurienne  was  at  Lyons 
with  the  Pope  on  29  Feb.,  1 107,  on  the  settlement  of  the  dispute  between  Guy 
of  Vienne  and  St  Hugh  of  Grenoble  over  the  limits  of  their  dioceses.  But  though 
Count  Guigues  of  Albon  was  present,  no  mention  is  made  of  Amadeus  III  (Marion, 
Cartul....de  Grenoble,  p.  3).  The  Pope  was  at  Aiguebelle  on  Aug.  4,  1 107  (Jaffe, 
6164). 

2  Car.  Reg.  ccxLVii.  (see  above,  p.  278,  n.  2). 

•*  The  only  possible  exception  is  Car.  Heg.  CCLII.  {M.H.P.  Chart,  i.  737)  where 
Guichenon's  text  (Preuves,  p.  30)  gives  Amadeus  comes  et  consanguineus  carissimus  as 
an  intervener.  But  Guichenon's  text  seems  unsupported  by  MS.  authority  (Carutti, 
loc.  cit.)\  and  even  the  diploma  as  given  in  M.H.P.  seems  a  forgery.  The  place  of 
its  emission  Intra  on  Lago  Maggiore  is  impossible  for  its  date  (23  Mar.  or  (G.)  i  Ap. 
nil),  and  although  Guichenon  has  Sutri,  which  is  possible,  his  interpolation  makes 
his  evidence  suspect.  Henry  takes  the  extraordinary  title  of  Palatinus.  See  for 
a  defence  of  Guichenon's  version  Kallmann,  op.  cit.  pp.  63-4. 

*  Car.  Reg.  CCXLViii,  and  CCLViii.  (really  duplicates),  Carte... d'Oitlx,  B.S.S.S. 
XLV.  p.  102).  "  Regnante  rege  Henrico  qui  tunc  temporis  dissessionem  cum  papa  Pascali 
habuit" ;  Guichenon  (Preuves,  p.  30)  had  the  absurd  reading  "  dilectionem  "  which  is 
not  in  any  MS.     The  date,  however,  is  a  difficulty.     It  is  24  Feb.,  1 1 19,  Ind.  xi.,  Luna 


28o  Amadeus  Ill's  early  life  and  wars 

contemporary  support  whatever  for  the  legend  of  the  Chroniques^  that 
he  accompanied  the  Emperor  to  Rome  and  received  from  him  the  title 
of  Count  of  Savoy  ^  The  same  detachment  appears  to  characterize  the 
Count's  attitude  all  through  the  long  struggle  which  follows.  When  his 
uncle  Guy  of  Vienne  held  a  Burgundian  council  in  September  1 1 1 2  to 
declare  Pope  Paschal's  concessions  to  the  Emperor  null,  no  Savoyard 
Bishop  took  part-':  nor  when  Henry  V  returned  to  Italy  in  11 16  does 
the  Count  once  appear  in  his  entourage,  during  his  marches  to  and  fro 
to  secure  Matilda  of  Tuscany's  heritage,  or  the  election  of  an  antipope 
on  Paschal's  death  in  January  11 18.  This  is  of  greater  import  because 
in  1 1 16  we  find  Henry  near  Casale  and  Ivrea  and  in  11 18  by  Turin*. 

One  document,  however,  reveals  to  us  exceedingly  clearly  the 
Emperor's  policy.  On  the  30th  June,  1 1 16,  Henry  V  issued  a  precept  in 
favour  of  the  citizens  of  Turin.  He  confirmed  their  good  customs  in  use 
in  his  father's  time,  and  their  liberty  of  the  same  period,  so  that  for  the 
future  they  shall  immediately  hold  of  the  Emperor,  saving  the  customary 
rights  {justitia)  of  the  Bishop  of  Turing  Thus  we  see  Turin  had 
obtained  communal  liberty  in  Henry  I V's  days ;  and  that  the  Bishop, 
either  by  usage  or  some  lost  diploma,  had  acquired  some  degree  of 
jurisdiction  over  his  cathedral  city.  But  more  than  all,  we  see  that 
Henry  had  no  intention  of  restoring  the  mark  of  Turin  or  of  reintroduc- 
ing the  House  of  Savoy  in  Italy.  We  find  now  an  imperial  preference 
for  a  number  of  smaller  local  authorities  who  might  be  more  amenable 
perhaps  to  the  Emperor's  control,  and  I  may  note  here  that  this  system 
was  to  last  unchanged  throughout  the  twelfth  century.     It  was  only  in 


xxviii.  Now  Paschal  died  in  Jan.  1118:  Henry  became  Emperor  13  Ap.  iiii. 
The  24th  Feb.  was  the  2 8th  day  of  the  moon  in  1107;  but  at  that  date  Amadeus  was 
still  under  tutorship,  and  no  tutor  appears  in  the  deed.  The  Indiction  xi.  is  in  11 18. 
Thus  there  seem  two  alternatives  of  greater  probability  than  others,  (i)  That  the 
date  is  11 18,  Paschal's  death  not  being  known  and  Henry's  Emperorship  being  dis- 
regarded; 24  Feb.  is  then  29th  of  the  moon.  (2)  That  the  date  is  mo  (1109  ab 
incarn.),  Ind.  III.,  the  day  of  the  moon  being  about  the  second  by  the  Golden 
Number,  the  scribe  being  uncertain  just  at  the  New  Moon.  The  latter  hypothesis  is 
taken  in  the  text. 

^  Misc.  stor.  ital.  xxii.  p.  314,  RI.H.P.  Script.  11.  100-2,  107.  The  Emperor 
comes  to  take  possession  of  Aries,  received  at  Montmelian  by  Amadeus;  they  go  to 
Milan  and  Rome.  Emperor  is  guided  by  Count's  advice.  This  story  seems  to  be  a 
fusion  of  Henry  VH's  journey — the  latter  being  met  by  Amadeus  V  at  Chambery — 
and  that  of  Henry  IV  who  was  met  by  Amadeus  II  at  Coise.  The  plague  in  the 
Emperor's  army  seems  to  be  derived  from  Frederick  Barbarossa's  experiences  in  1167. 

2  Misc.  stor.  ital.  xxii.  p.  314:  M.H.P.  Script,  il.  101-2.  Amadeus  III  did 
first  use  the  predicate  "  of  Savoy." 

*  See  Jacob,  Bourgogne,  pp.  1 13-14. 

*  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  36. 

«  Car.  Reg.  CCLVli.  {M.H.P.  Chart.  I.  742).     Cf.  above,  p.  258,  n.  6. 


Amadeus   Ill's  early  foreign  policy  281 

the  thirteenth  century  that  the  Hohenstaufen  were  again  to  think  of 
building  up  a  Piedmontese  state  under  the  Savoyard  Counts'. 

If  this  was  the  Emperor's  poUcy,  it  would  appear  that  Amadeus  III 
for  one  reason  or  another  fell  in  with  it  at  the  time.  There  is  not  a 
trace  of  any  action  of  his  in  these  years,  which  would  lead  us  to  suppose 
that  he  contemplated  a  forward  movement  in  Italy.  His  mother  Gisela 
■was  indeed  remarried  to  Ranier  of  Montferrat,  but,  if  this  had  any 
political  significance,  it  was  probably  a  measure  of  precaution.  It  would 
help  to  maintain  the  status  quo  in  Piedmont.  We  seem  therefore  led  to 
believe  that  the  Count  deliberately  held  aloof  from  Italy.  His  motives 
would  be  probably  various.  Thus,  he  would  be  chary  of  running 
counter  to  his  formidable  cousin.  He  himself  was  a  scandalous  instance 
of  a  lay  investor  of  bishops  :  he  could  not  really  side  with  the  strong 
ecclesiastical  party.  He  was,  presumably,  away  in  the  Holy  Land  on 
his  first  crusade  part  of  the  time.  We  know  he  went  twice,  and  there  is 
reason  to  believe  his  first  journey  was  in  iiii'^.  Lastly,  there  is  some 
ground  for  thinking  that  his  interests  and  alliances  led  westward  at  this 
period.  In  the  first  half  of  11 15  his  elder  sister  Adelaide  married 
Louis  VI  the  Fat,  King  of  France*;  probably  not  long  after  his  second 
sister  Agnes  married  Archembald  de  Bourbon.  That  he  was  stirring  in 
the  Vallais,  we  know  by  a  charter  of  September  11 16  by  which  he 
restored  the  two  curtes  of  Leuk  and  Naters  to  the  Bishop  of  Sion^  But 
he  soon  took  them  back  as  we  shall  see.  What  his  claim  to  them  was 
based  on  is  not  clear.  Henry  IV  had  given  them  to  the  Bishop  out  of 
Rudolf  of  Rheinfelden's  confiscated  lands ^  Perhaps  the  latter  had 
received  them  in  dower  with  Adelaide  of  Savoy,  and  her  kinsman 
reclaimed  them.  But  I  suspect  that  the  pressure  of  German  immigrants, 
"who  c.  1 150-1200  settled  the  district  between  Brieg  and  the  Lonza,  may 
have  induced  the  original  Romance  inhabitants  to  apply  to  the  warlike 
Count".     Elsewhere  he  appears  as  a  champion  of  the  church.     About 

*  See  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  pp.  36,  68-9,  71. 

^  See  below,  p.  309,  n.  i,  Car.  Reg.  CCLVI.,  a  document  of  his  first  Crusade  is 
dated  Thursday,  19  Jan.,  no  year.  This  could  be  iiii,  1122,  1128.  Both  the  latter 
seem  to  me  too  late  and  fall  in  times  of  his  great  activity  at  home. 

'  See  Luchaire,  Louis  VI,  pp.  187,  192.  Cf.  Car.  Reg.  CCLiv.,  where  the  lady's 
character  is  given  by  Bishop  Ivo  of  Chartres,  "  puellam  aetate  nubilem,  genere  nobilem, 
honestis  moribus,  ut  dicitur,  laudabilem."  She  died  in  1154  after  a  second  marriage. 
Louis  had  first  negotiated  for  a  daughter  of  Boniface  del  Vasto,  but  the  lady's  doubtful 
birth,  for  her  mother  had  been  fiancee  of  Boniface's  brother,  before  marrying  him, 
•stopped  the  matter ;  Savio,  Bonifazio  del  Vasto  (Atti  R.  Accad.  Scienze  Torino, 
XXII.),  p.  9J. 

■*  M.D.R.  xvni.  p.  255.     He  seems  to  act  as  lay  Abbot  of  St  Maurice. 

'  M.D.R.  xviii.  p.  347,  and  xix.  p.  103. 

*  See  Groeber,  Griindriss  dcr  ro/nanischen  Pkilologie,  I.  712.     Cf.  above,  p.  92. 


282  Amadeus  Ill's  early  life  and  wars 

1 1 15  Guy  of  Vienne  writes!  him  an  approving  letter  on  account  of  his 
defence  of  the  church  of  Maurienne\  while  in  11 20  the  Emperor 
Henry  V  appealed  to  his  dear  cousin,  along  with  Aymon  I,  Count  of 
the  Genevois,  to  intervene  in  favour  of  the  Abbey  of  Romainmotier  at 
the  foot  of  the  Jura  against  a  tyrannous  and  unruly  local  seigneur,  Ebal 
de  Gransonl  This  fact  has  a  particular  interest  as  showing  that 
Amadeus  had  gained  some  influence  north  of  the  Lake  of  Geneva, 
connected  no  doubt  with  his  land  on  the  Valserine. 

Meantime  the  investiture  contest  dragged  on.  Gelasius  II,  Paschal's 
immediate  successor,  died  in  February  11 19,  in  exile  at  Cluny.  A  new 
Pope  was  thereupon  elected  in  the  person  of  the  redoubtable  Guy  of 
Vienne,  who  took  the  name  of  Calixtus  II.  For  over  a  year  the  new 
Pope,  strong  in  his  princely  birth  and  alliances  as  well  as  in  his  personal 
character,  journeyed  through  France  and  Burgundy,  holding  councils 
and  receiving  universal  homage.  But  his  nephew  of  Savoy  was  not  to 
be  won  and  the  Pope  did  not  visit  his  territory.  There  was  evidently 
something  like  estrangement  between  the  two;  for  when  in  March  11 20, 
Calixtus  crossed  the  Alps  into  Italy,  he  not  only  travelled  by  the  Mont 
Genevre,  reaching  it  from  the  south  via  Gap  and  Embrun,  but  he 
avoided  a  halt  in  the  Count's  land.  His  stopping-places  were  Oulx  in 
Count  Guigues'  land  and  S.  Ambrogio,  belonging  to  the  Abbey  of 
Chiusa,  although  acknowledging  the  ultimate  rule  of  Amadeus  IIP. 

From  S.  Ambrogio  forth,  Calixtus  made  a  triumphal  progress 
through  Italy  to  Rome,  extinguishing  the  imperial  anti-Pope  Burdinus 
by  his  mere  presence.  Henry  V  saw  that  the  time  was  coming  to  yield, 
and  Calixtus  was  too  experienced  a  statesman  to  attempt  to  force 
through  concessions  which  would  never  be  kept.  Hence  the  Concordat 
of  Worms  in  September  11 22  was  a  triumph  for  the  Papacy  and  a 
guarantee  for  the  Empire.  Henry  yielded  the  investiture  of  the  spiritual 
staff  and  ring  ;  but  the  elections  to  vacant  Bishoprics  and  Abbacies  were 
to  take  place  in  his  presence,  he  was  to  invest  them  with  their  imperial 
fiefs  by  the  sceptre,  and  this  new  ceremony  was  to  bind  them  to  their 
due  services  and  fealty  to  their  sovereign  and  suzerain.  In  fact  while 
the  Papacy  won  a  notable  victory  and  the  church  theory  was  recognized, 
the  Emperor  retained  his  hold  on  his  Bishops.  In  a  feudal  time,  when 
all  the  instruments  of  government  were  become  feudalized,  the  Emperors 

^  Car.  Reg.  CCLV.  (Chevalier,  Cartul.  Si  Andrd-le-bas,  Vienne,  p.  281). 

"  M.D.R.  in.  439.  Amadeus  given  no  title,  he  is  only  the  Emperor's  consan- 
guineus.     Was  there  a  difficulty  as  to  the  extra  title  of  "marchio"? 

^  See  Jacob,  Bourgogne,  pp.  120-1.  Cf.  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  36.  See  Jaffe, 
6333,  6334,  and  Boso,  Vi.  Calixt.  II,  "Peragratis  itaque  Provincie  partibus  et 
Alpium  difficultate  transcensa,  ad  S.  Ambrosium  cum  jocunditate  pervenit."  Duchesne, 
Lib.  Pontif.  \\.  376. 


War  with  the  Genevois  283 

had  largely  maintained  themselves  by  the  creation  of  this  class  of  non- 
hereditary  vassals,  and  besides  the  inequity  of  the  thing  and  the  rents 
which  would  be  made  in  the  state  by  the  exemption  of  ecclesiastics 
from  public  ties,  half  their  means  of  coercing  their  lay  subjects  would  be 
gone  if  they  really  lost  their  voice  in  church  appointments.  It  was  of 
course  the  narrowing  down  of  the  controversy  to  these  matters  of 
practical  procedure  which  made  a  settlement  possible.  Thus  for  a 
time  a  new  breach  was  avoided  on  the  issues  raised  by  Gregory  VII. 
The  Pope  still  claimed  to  be  Christ's  vicegerent  supreme  over  Emperor 
and  Kings;  the  Emperor  still  maintained  the  independence  of  the 
secular  power,  and  the  derivation  of  his  authority  from  God  alone.  But 
they  did  not  press  their  conclusions  for  many  years.  When  the  breach 
came  under  Frederick  Barbarossa,  it  was  seen  that  the  Emperor  could 
count  on  his  German  Bishops  even  more  fully  than  in  the  century 
before. 

The  problem  and  its  settlement  had  a  vivid  interest  for  the  Counts 
of  Savoy,  for  they  had  under  them  four  or  five  dependent  Bishops,  not 
to  mention  Abbots.  It  can  hardly,  then,  be  a  coincidence  that  from 
this  time  forward  the  relations  of  the  Counts  to  the  church,  in  spite  of 
personal  piety,  seem  to  grow  less  happy.  The  Abbots  gave  little  trouble 
it  would  seem ;  but  we  hear  of  independent-minded  Bishops  and  of 
disputes  on  the  Counts'  claims.  The  latter  were  not  fortunately  placed, 
since  the  Emperors  by  no  means  looked  with  favour  on  their  regalian 
rights,  and  they  were  thus  doubly  exposed  to  attack. 

The  beginning  of  these  disputes,  however,  will  be  best  considered, 
when  I  come  to  treat  of  the  hints  we  get  of  Amadeus  Ill's  civil  govern- 
ment in  the  next  section.  They  belong  in  essence  to  the  defensive  side 
of  his  activity;  and  the  more  striking  aspect  of  his  rule  is  that  concerned 
with  his  aggressive,  forward  movements,  his  wars  with  his  neighbours, 
his  attack  on  Piedmont,  and  his  share  in  the  Cistercian  revival  of 
monasticism. 

It  may  be  that  in  the  years  1120-4  we  should  place  a  tale  in 
the  Chronigues,  which  relates  a  war  of  Amadeus  with  the  Count  of  the 
Genevois.  We  are  told  the  Count  of  the  Genevois  was  enraged  with 
Amadeus  because  he  broke  off  a  match  arranged  for  him  with  the 
Count's  daughter,  and  married  the  daughter  of  the  Count  of  Albon 
instead.  Then  the  Count  of  the  Genevois  invaded  Maurienne,  but  was 
defeated  and  slain  at  the  Col  de  Tamie  by  Amadeus  and  his  father- 
in-law'.  Now  .Amadeus  about  11 34  really  did  marry  a  daughter  of 
Guigues  III  of  Albon'.     But  the  Count  whom  he  defeated  and  slew 

'  Misc.  stor.  ital.   xxii.  pp.  314-5;  M.H.P.   Script.   11.    100-5.     They  say  that 
Amadeus  III  proceeded  to  conquer  Savoy  ! 
^  See  below,  p.  292. 


284  Amadeus   Ill's  early  life  and  wars 

was  his  brother-in-law,  the  Dauphin  Guigues  IV'.  So  we  cannot  trust 
the  Chroniques;  but  two  facts  give  some  likeUhood  to  a  war  of  his 
against  the  Genevois.  Firstly,  for  Amadeus  Ill's  own  son  his  nobles 
were  careful  to  choose  an  ecclesiastical  guardian.  Secondly,  Aymon  I 
of  the  Genevois  had  to  submit  to  a  peace  with  the  Bishop  of  Geneva, 
which  confirmed  the  latter's  claims.  So  it  seems  not  improbable  that 
there  was  a  grudge  between  the  ex-guardian  and  the  ex-ward,  that  this 
quarrel  was  wreaked  in  a  war  between  the  Bishop  Humbert  de  Gram- 
mont  of  Geneva  and  Aymon  I,  that  Aymon  was  badly  worsted  by 
the  allies  and  therefore  compelled  to  accept  the  peace  of  Seyssel  (in 
Amadeus'  territory)  in  11 24-.  The  Col  de  Tamie,  lying  between  the 
Lac  d'Annecy  and  Aiguebelle,  was  of  course  a  natural  place  for  the  two 
Counts  to  fight  a  battle  at. 

Meantime  it  would  appear  that  Amadeus  III  had  married  his  first 
wife,  named  Adelaide,  of  unknown  parentage^ :  and  probably  it  was  her 
childlessness  which  turned  his  thoughts  towards  monastic  revival  then 
in  full  progress  under  the  leadership  of  St  Bernard  of  Clairvaux.  A 
daughter  Alice  seems  to  have  blessed  their  prayers,  of  whom  more 
anon^ 

The  first  hint  of  Amadeus'  Italian  ambitions'  occurs  in  11 24  when 
he  assumes,  though  probably  not  for  the  first  time,  the  title  Comes  et 
Marchio^.  But  there  is  no  trace  of  his  taking  any  action,  till  the  year 
1 131.  The  election  of  Lothar  II  of  Saxony  as  King  of  the  Romans 
in  1 125  seems  to  have  met  with  cold  submission  from  him^  and  there 
is  complete  silence  as  to  any  support  given  by  him  to  Conrad  of 
Hohenstaufen's  revolt  in  Italy^     In  fact  it  would  appear  that  Amadeus 

^  See  below,  p.  292.     Only  that  was  at  Montmelian. 

2  M.D.R.  XIX.  116.  Perhaps  to  this  time  belongs  Amadeus'  protection  of 
S.  Jeoire  Priory  on  the  Lac  d'Annecy  (Car.  Reg.  CCL. ). 

^  Car.  Reg.  CCLXIX.  (CipoUa,  Le  pin  antiche  carte. ..di  S.  Giusto  di  Susa,  Bull. 
Istit.  stor.  ital.  18,  p.  90).  She  was  thus  still  alive  on  the  27  July,  1133  (in  charter 
1 134:  but  the  date  must  be  Pisan  to  make  Thursday  the  27  July).  Carutti,  Reg. 
p.  89,  suspects  an  error  in  the  Countess'  name,  which  would  eliminate  Adelaide 
altogether;  but  the  diploma  is  an  original  (see  Cipolla,  loc.  cit.). 

*  See  below,  pp.  294-5.  Alice  (Aalis)  is  of  course  the  Romance  form  of  Adelaide, 
now  working  its  way  into  official  documents. 

•^  Cf.  for  this  part  of  my  subject  Gabotto,  L Abasia  e  il  Cotnune  di  Pinerolo  ecc, 
B.S.S.S.  I. 

"  Misc.  Valdost.,  B.S.S.S.  xvii.  p.  135;  but  at  least  two  charters  to  S.  Sulpice 
with  the  same  title  are  probably  earlier  (Guigue,  op.  cit.  pp.  7  and  9). 

7  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  38.  The  diploma  of  Conon  Bishop  of  Maurienne  (Car. 
Sup.  XXXII.,  Cipolla,  Mo}t.  Noval.  i.  247)  has  "Loterio  imperatore  regnante"  on 
14  May,  1129,  in  Amadeus'  presence.  The  wrong  title  is  possible,  and  the  date  is 
guaranteed  as  the  act  is  an  original. 

8  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  pp.  38-9,  who  points  out  this  certainly  would  be  mentioned, 
if  it  existed. 


Amadeus   III   in   Italy  285 

held  quite  aloof  from  imperial  questions.  Not  even  the  revival  by 
Lothar  II  of  the  Rectorate  of  Burgundy  in  favour  of  Conrad  of  Zahrin- 
gen,  with  authority  reaching  to  the  Isere,  seems  to  have  stirred  the 
Count.  It  is  true  that  there  is  no  sign  of  the  Duke  of  Zahringen  ex- 
ercising any  superiority  over  him\ 

Some  considerable  success  would  seem  to  have  rewarded  Amadeus' 
first  efforts.  Unfortunately  we  only  know  of  them  through  a  corrupt 
charter  of  his  to  the  Abbey  of  Pinerolo  dated  at  S.  Ambrogio  in  Chiusan 
land  1131^.  By  this  document  he  confirms  the  possessions  of  the 
Monastery,  leaving  out,  however,  the  part  of  the  Valle  di  Fenestrelle 
above  Perosa  which  the  Dauphins  occupied ;  and  adding  the  feudal 
grant  of  the  universa  placita...in  omnibus  villis  et possessionibus  quae  sunt 
in  \^finibus'\  ipsius  fnonasterii.  Thus  he  accepts,  we  may  presume,  the 
feudal  position  of  affairs  which  had  come  about.  For  himself  he  retains 
during  his  good  pleasure  the  dominium  which  Manfred  (and  Ade- 
laide (?))^  possessed  in  demesne,  which  is  expressly  stated  not  to  be 
a  gift  or  fief  from  the  Abbot.  In  like  manner,  he  holds  the  fiefs  of 
the  Marquesses  of  Romagnano  and  Henry  of  Luserna  under  pledge 
not  to  alienate  them  unless  to  his  own  son.  We  are  left  puzzling 
whether  this  charter  is  the  result  of  a  war  with  the  Abbey,  or  of  an 
alliance.  The  latter  solution  seems  most  probable.  Very  likely  the 
monks  were  hard  pressed  by  other  neighbours  and  had  to  submit  to 
hard  terms.  Presumably  the  dominium  the  Count  kept  included  the 
right  to  exact  feudal  service,  the  cavalcatae,  since  it  is  not  mentioned 
in  the  grants     The  clause  concerning  the  fiefs  of  the  Romagnano  and 

^  See  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  39.  Cf.  Kallmann,  op.  cit.  85-7,  Gingins,  Le 
Rectorat  de  Bourgogne,  M.D.R.  i.,  Bernhardi,  Lothar  v.  Supplinberg,  pp.  133-6, 
Foumier,  Le  Royaume  d" Aries,  pp.  1-5.  See  also  Otto  Fris.  Gest.  Frid.  imp.  [M.G.H. 
Script.  XX.  413).  There  was  a  war  between  the  new  Rector  and  Rainald  I  of 
"  Franche  Comte"and  Amadeus  I  of  the  Genevois  c.  1130:  but  Amadeus  III  of 
Savoy  was  occupied  with  his  Italian  schemes  then. 

2  Car.  Reg.  CMXLViii.  {Cartario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  II.  p.  54).  Carutti  con- 
siders it  a  forgery  or  much  interpolated.  But  Prof.  Gabotto  {loc.  cit.)  points  out 
there  is  nothing  anachronous  in  it.  The  fact  that  it  is  only  known  by  a  fourteenth 
century  copy  will  explain  the  error  of  the  date  which  is  just  as  bad  in  any  century  for 
a  hxed  feast  (Kal.  Marci  =  die  Anunciationis ;  no  doubt  viii.  Kal.  Ap.  should  be  read). 
One  clause  in  the  third  person  ("donum  insuper  et  laudem  quod  comes  Humbertus 
predicte  ecclesie  fecerat  hie  comes  Amedeus  solempniter  aprobavit")  seems  an  insertion, 
contemporary  or  later,  and  even  that  has  a  probable  ring.  I  may  add  that  a  later 
forgery  would  be  more  precise  in  the  feudal  grants  one  way  or  the  other.  A  monastic 
forgery  would  shut  out  the  Count  altogether ;  a  comital  one  would  certainly  not  allow 
"spes  recuperationis"  of  the  dominium  to  the  Abbot. 

*  This  is  the  conjectural  filling  up  of  a  lacuna.  The  monks  retain  "spes 
recuperationis  rursum." 

■*  Prof.  Gabotto  {VAbazia  e  il  Comune  di  Pitterolo  ecc,  B.S.S.S.  I.  p.  107)  holds 
that  Amadeus  had  warred  with  the  Abbey. 


286  Amadeus   Ill's  early  life  and  wars 

Henry  di  Luserna  was  probably  introduced  in  order  to  get  a  hold  by 
homage  over  those  seigneurs,  if  only  for  small  fractions  of  their  lands ^ 

Fortified  as  we  may  suppose  by  the  support  of  his  three  dependent 
monasteries,  Amadeus  could  proceed  on  his  campaign.  By  August 
1 131  his  ambition  was  attained,  for  we  find  him  on  the  23rd  of  that 
month  in  Turin,  with  the  title  Comes  Taurinensts,  making  a  grant  of 
confirmation  to  the  Abbey  of  S.  Solutore^.  The  title  shows  the  nature 
of  his  dominion,  for  he  does  not  use  the  style  of  Marchio,  which  he 
probably  looked  on  as  merely  referring  to  the  Ardoinid  estates  on  the 
model  of  the  Aleramid  Marquesses.  But  he  was  heir  of  Adelaide  and 
holder  of  the  public  power.  As  to  the  extent  of  his  new  dominion,  we 
have  not  much  to  judge  by.  It  included  the  city  of  Turin;  the  homage 
of  Oberto  Count  of  Castellamonte";  that  of  the  Viscounts  of  Avigliana 
and  Baratonia*,  whose  domains  extended  over  the  northerly  valleys  of 
the  Stura  di  Ala  and  the  Stura  di  Viii  and  territories  between  the  Stura 
di  Lanzo  and  the  Dora  Riparia^;  that  of  the  signori  ol  Piossasco'',  of 
Caselle'',  and  of  Barge*;  and  no  doubt  the  monastic  domains  in  the 
plain  such  as  Frossasco,  and  Musinasco',  Vigone  and  Vol  vera  ^*.  Yet 
with  all  allowance  made,  the  new  Countship  of  Turin  was  but  a  poor 
imitation  of  Adelaide's  position.     Not  to  mention  the  limited  authority 


^  Gabotto,  op.  cit.  pp.  107-8. 

^  Car.  Reg.  CCLXViii.  (Cartario...S.  Solutore  di  Torino,  B.S.S.S.  XLIV.  p.  51). 
His  claim  is  shown  in  Car.  Reg.  CCLXXXix.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  34),  which  is 
a  charier  to  Rivalta  canonry  c.  1131-4,  "Burgundiae  et  Lombardiae  comes,  neposque 
Comitissae  Aladiae  et  hereditario  jure  successor  in  cujus  (Aladiae)  allodio  Ripaltensis 
canonica...fundata  est."  The  unique  phrase  must  allude  to  his  dual  position,  "Count 
in  Burgundy  and  in  Lombardy,"  thus  furnishing  an  apt  parallel  to  the  later  "in  Italia 
marchio."  The  diploma  is  dated  from  Turin  and  from  the  curious  title  probably 
shortly  after  its  acquisition. 

3  Car.  Reg.  cclxviii.  (see  above,  n.  2).  This  explains  the  title  "  comitum 
comiti"  (see  below,  p.   297,  n.    i). 

*  Car.  Reg.  CCLXix.  (see  below,  n.  6),  and  cclxviii.    Cf.  below,  n.  5. 

^  Rondolino,  Siti  viscotiti  di  Torino,  Boll.  stor.  bibl.  subalp.  Anno  vi.  284-90, 
Anno  vii.  214-8.  Their  lands,  however,  save  in  Val  di  Susa,  were  either  held  of  the 
Bishop  of  Turin  or  alodial. 

®  Car.  Reg.  CCLXIX.  (CipoUa,  Le  piii  antiche  carte. ..di  S.  Giusto  di  Susa,  Bull. 
Istit.  stor.  ital.  p.  90).  The  Walter  di  Piossasco  here,  according  to  Ct.  di  Vesme,  is 
ancestor  of  the  later  house,  which,  however,  retained  Volvera,  in  spite  of  this  charter 
to  S.  Giusto,  an  index  of  how  much  power  Amadeus  really  had.  See  Ct.  di  Vesme, 
Le  origini  della  feudalita  nel  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  I.  46-7. 

''  Car.  Reg.  cmxlviii.  (see  p.  285,  n.  2). 

^  Car.  Reg.  CCLXXV.  (CipoUa,  op.  cit.  p.  48),  Car.  Reg.  CCLXXIX.  (Cibrario  e 
Promis,  Doc.  ecc.  p.  48),  ccxciv.  (Cipolla,  op.  cit.  p.  94).  This  homage  for  one  half 
of  Barge  continued  in  the  thirteenth  century  till  1225  (see  below,  p.  403). 

^  Belonging  to  Pinerolo. 

^^  Belonging  to  Chiusa;  but  cf.   n.  6  above. 


The  conquest  of  Turin  287 

the  Count  can  have  had  over  Turin,  used  to  a  Commune,  and  the  now 
ripe  feudal  jurisdictions  of  the  nobles  and  abbeys ;  there  were  the  solita 
justitia  of  the  Bishop  in  Turin,  as  well  as  his  great  estates  and  many 
vassals  in  the  country  ^  Among  them  was  the  Count  himself,  for  how 
much  land  we  cannot  say ;  the  amount  was  probably  in  dispute  from 
the  first.  But  in  1185  the  imperial  court  adjudged  to  the  Bishop 
Pianezza,  Torretta,  Rivalta,  half  Carignano  and  even  Avigliana  castle, 
which  the  Count  claimed  as  an  alod'-.  Besides  these,  in  the  Count's 
own  domain  there  were  Cavoretto  and  CoUegno ;  which  seem  to  have 
belonged  to  the  Count,  and  not  to  have  been  claimed  by  the  Bishop 
as  yet^. 

The  few  traces  of  Amadeus'  rule  show  him  favouring  religious 
houses.  We  find  him  for  instance  in  July  1133,  trying  to  make 
Viscount  Merlo  of  Avigliana  and  Walter  di  Piossasco  disgorge  the 
possessions  of  S.  Giusto  di  Susa  at  Almese  and  Volvera,  which  they 
had  respectively  seized^.  The  attempt  to  restore  Volvera  at  any  rate 
was  unsuccessful ^  Besides  these  measures  it  was  Amadeus,  who  first 
of  his  House  saw  the  advisability  of  making  concessions  to  the  com- 
munal spirit.  The  earliest  town  charter  of  the  Savoyards,  that  to  Susa, 
dates  from  his  rule". 

Meantime  the  storm  was  rising  which  was  to  wreck  the  new  count- 
ship  of  Turin;  for  in  September  1136,  the  Emperor  Lothar  II  appeared 

'  Thus  the  Viscounts  and  the  Piossasco  were  more  bound  to  the  Bishop  than  the 
Count. 

^  See  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  63.  Amadeus  III  calls  Rivalta  an  alod  of  Adelaide, 
whose  heir  he  is  (Car.  Reg.  CCLXXXix. ,  see  above,  p.  286,  n.  2).  But  the  Bishop 
claimed  and  obtained  it  in  1185.  Rivalta  may  have  been  within  the  10  miles  limit 
granted  by  Barbarossa.     See  below,  p.  326. 

But  a  certain  Ulric  was  in  possession  of  the  castle  in  11 76  when  Frederick 
Barbarossa  had  it  destroyed,  and  his  rights  with  regard  to  it  were  recognized  in  1185 
and  1186.  See  below,  pp.  318,  n.  i,  344  and  349.  Cf.  Ct.  di  Vesme,  Le  origitii 
della  feudalith  ml  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  I.  pp.  38-41,  for  these  signori  di  Rivalta. 

Carignano  is  a  curiis  of  the  Bishop  both  in  Otto  Ill's  diploma  {M.G.H.  Dipl.  11. 
284)  and  in  Barbarossa's  (Car.  Reg.  cccxxii.,  Carte... arcivescovili di  Torino,  B.S.S.S. 
xxxvi.  p.  31).  But  this  appears  to  refer  to  only  half  of  the  township.  Cf.  below, 
p.  348,  n.  6. 

'  Cavoretto  had  signori  of  its  own  in  1200  (Car.  Reg.  cccxcviii..  Carte... arcives- 
covili di  Torino,  B.S.S.S.  xxxvi.  p.  114).  c.  C240  the  Bishop  says,  "  Ecclesia 
Taurinensis  habet  privilegia  imperialia  quod  Collegium  suum  est.  Comes  Sabaudiae 
edificavit  ibi  castrum  quod  per  episcopum  Taurinensem  destructum  fuit  cum  auxilio 
Taurinensium  ut  dicitur. "  But  I  do  not  find  earlier  mention  of  the  Bishop's  rights. 
Certain  «/</«  in  Collegno,  however,  hold  of  the  Bishop  c.  11 75  (Carte  del  Pinerolese, 
B.S.S.S.  III.  2,  p.  225).  Probably  1186  was  the  date  of  the  above  event.  See 
below,  p.   349. 

■*  Car.  Reg.  ccLXix.  (see  p.  2S6,  n.  6). 

'  See  above,  p.  286,  n.  6.  ®  See  below,  pp.  303-6. 


288  Amadeus  Ill's  early  life  and  wars 

for  the  second  time  in  Italy.  We  do  not  hear  of  any  earlier  grounds  of 
quarrel  between  Lothar  II  and  the  Count.  The  latter's  disobedience, 
which  he  shared  with  the  other  Burgundian  vassals,  to  Lothar's  pressing 
summons  to  lead  his  contingent  into  Italy,  was  not  a  great  ground  of 
complaint  under  the  circumstances'.  Amadeus  is  not  mentioned  as 
opposing  Conrad  of  Zahringen  in  Burgundy  or  as  supporting  Conrad  of 
Hohenstaufen  in  Italy.  He,  being  an  admirer  of  the  Cistercians,  was 
no  favourer  of  the  anti-Pope,  Anacletus,  in  the  schism^.  Hence 
Lothar's  motives  may  probably  be  found  in  other  directions.  Amadeus' 
was  a  usurper;  he  could  show  no  ground,  save  a  doubtful  hereditary 
claim,  for  his  seizure  of  Turin.  Lothar,  like  Henry  V,  had  no  intention 
of  allowing  the  mark  of  Turin  to  be  revived;  he  preferred  less  powerful 
authorities  in  Piedmont.  We  know  that  Amadeus  and  Arbert,  Bishop 
of  Turin,  were  at  daggers  drawn.  Archbishop  Peter  of  Lyon,  as  will 
appear  in  the  sequel  in  1 137-8  was  trying  vainly  to  reconcile  them^, 
and  the  Bishop  was  present  at  Lothar's  diet  at  Roncaglia,  on  the  30th 
November  ii36'*.  Almost  immediately  after  the  Emperor  marched 
into  western  Lombardy,  subduing  the  various  towns  which  opposed 
him.  No  doubt  it  had  been  thought  that  Lothar  would  leave  that  part 
of  the  country  alone,  as  he  had  done  in  1133.  One  of  these  rebel 
cities  was  Turin.  Here  we  have  an  almost  certain  reason.  Amadeus 
would  not  yield  up  the  town  and  the  Emperor  had  resolved  to  take  it 
from  him.  The  task  does  not  seem  to  have  been  hard.  The  city  was 
captured,  and  the  leaders  of  the  resistance  slain  or  taken,  the  work 
being  completed  by  the  capture  of  Rocca  Pandolfo,  the  castle  holding 
the  Po  bank  on  the  souths  Then  Amadeus  III  was  dealt  with.  A 
few  days'  incursion  and  their  tale  of  captured  castles  and  borghi 
sufficed  to  make  the  Count  submit ;  and  Lothar  could  march  eastward 
in  triumph".     Near  Borgo  S.   Donnino,   still   in   the  same   month   of 

^  See  Fournier,  Le  Royaiune  cf  Aries,  pp.  1-2.     Stumpf,  p.  3329. 

*  e.g.  19  Nov.  1 132.  Innocent  II  is  sending  a  bull  to  the  Bishop  of  Aosta  (Jaffe, 
7602).  But  it  does  not  seem  quite  true  to  say  (Hellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  39)  that  the 
Count  gave  him  a  safe  conduct  across  the  Alps  in  1132.  The  Pope  went  via  Mont 
Genevre,  and  need  not  have  entered  Savoyard  territory  till  near  Susa.  In  fact  he 
could  elude  it  altogether  by  going  down  to  Pinerolo.     See  Jaffe,  7560-4. 

^  See  below,  p.  289. 

^  See  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  40,  Savio,  Gli  antichi  vescovi,  p.  258. 

^  See  Gabotto,  op.  cit.  p.  109.     It  was  on  the  present  Monte  dei  Capuccini. 

^  Cf.  Hellmann,  loc.  cit.  and  Gabotto,  op.  cit.  pp.  109-12.  The  text  is  Ann. 
Saxo  {M.G.H.  Script,  vi.  771),  "  Inde  (Papia)  castra  movens  imperator  Vercellis, 
deinde  Gamundi  et  Thurin  civitates  pertransiit,  quarum  habitatores  sibi  rebellantes 
obpugnans,  capiens  et  interficiens,  humiliavit.  Sic  fecit  castello  quod  dicebatur 
Rokkepandolf.  Post  hec  ingressus  est  terram  Hamadan  principis,  sue  majestati 
contradicentis,  quem  destnictis  innumeris  urbibus  et  locis  munitis  subici  sibi  con- 
pulit."     The  terms  of  the  Annalist  seem  exaggerated. 


Second  conquest  of  Turin  289 

December,  he  gave  legal  form  to  his  arrangements.  This  took  the 
shape  of  a  diploma  to  the  citizens  of  Turin,  issued  at  the  Empress 
Richilda's  intervention.  Henry  V's  privilege  of  11 16  was  thereby  con- 
firmed, with  the  express  concession  of  the  same  liberty  as  other  Italian 
cities  enjoyed,  and  under  reserve  of  the  rights  of  the  Empire  and  of  the 
imperial  count,  if  appointed.  Thus  everything  was  done  to  strengthen 
the  Commune,  and  yet  a  door  was  left  open  for  change'. 

It  is  characteristic  of  the  present  period  that  the  general  politics  of 
Lothar's  second  Italian  journey  do  not  in  the  least  concern  Savoy^,  the 
position  of  which  in  the  heart  of  Burgundy  was  singularly  secluded  as 
long  as  the  western  passes  were  not  in  question.  It  seems  probable, 
however,  that  the  Emperor's  return  journey  in  the  autumn  of  1137  and 
his  death  on  the  3rd  of  December  emboldened  Amadeus  to  a  new 
aggressive  movement.  At  first  he  had  been  disheartened,  if  we  may 
judge  by  his  charter  of  the  9th  January  1137,  by  which  he  not  only 
granted  to  the  Canons  of  Rivalta  full  power  of  possessing  and  acquiring, 
but  shut  out  lay  intervention  in  such  terms  as  seem  to  amount  to  a 
cession  of  all  his  rights  and  superiority^.  Now  we  seem  to  detect  a 
change,  if  the  sources  can  be  depended  on.  In  the  autumn  of  1 137  or 
spring  of  1138,  he  captured  Turin  by  assault,  the  resistance  being  easily 
explained  when  we  remember  that  his  chief  partizans  had  been  put  to 
death'*.  Then  we  hear  of  his  dissensions  with  Bishop  Arbert  of  Turin. 
It  would  appear  that  Archbishop  Peter  of  Lyons  made  some  arrange- 
ment ;  but  Arbert  continued  his  opposition  to  the  Count  and  the  latter 
complained   again   to   the  Archbishop"^.     As  to  what  Amadeus  Ill's 

'  Car.  Reg.  CCLXX.  {M.H.P.  Chart,  i.  775):  "ut  eandetn  quam  cetere  civitates 
Italice  libertatem  habeant  eaquc.quiete  fruantur,  salvo  tamen  in  omnibus  jure  nostro 
seu  comitis  illius  cui  vicem  nostram  comisserimus." 

^  Save  perhaps  Lothar's  constitution  on  fiefs  of  6  Nov.  11 36,  on  which  see  Bern- 
hardi,  Lothar  v.  Supplinberg,  p.  659. 

^  Car.  Reg.  CCLXXIII.  {M.H.P.  Chart,  il.  223),  "nulla  secularis  potestas,  nichil 
mundani  juris,  nichil  mundani  dominii  ibi  querat  vel  possideat  vel  habeat."  The 
infant  Humbert  III,  born  c.  1 135,  laudat  the  charter,  which  perhaps  maybe  explained 
by  the  largeness  of  the  concession. 

•*  The  authority  is  weak,  viz.  Parvum  Chron.  Astense.  (Misc.  stor.  ital.  ix.) ;  cf. 
Gabotto,  op.  cit.  p.  no,  n.  4:  "Hoc  anno  (1137)  Lotherius  rex  obiit,  et  Curradus 
factus  est  imperator,  et  ex  vi  capta  est  Taurinensis  civitas  ab  Amedeo  comite." 
Hellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  41,  rejects  the  testimony  on  the  ground  that  in  11 49  Turin  and 
the  Count  were  in  constant  war.  But  Turin  may  well  have  revolted  after  Amadeus' 
departure  for  the  East  in  1147:  and  the  fact  that  Otto  of  Freisingen  describes 
Amadeus  as  Taurinensis  in  1147  (l.  44,  M.G.H.  Script,  xvil.  375)  seems  to  me  to 
show  actual  possession  of  the  city  and  not  a  mere  claim,  since  Maurianensis  would 
be  the  natural  description  otherwise.  The  dating  of  Parv.  Chron.  Ast.  leaves  it 
uncertain  whether  1137  or  1138  is  right.     Conrad  was  crowned  13  March  1137/8. 

'  Car.  Reg.  CCLXXXil.  (Gallia  Christiana,  xv.  pp.  649-50),  "Super  episcopo 
Tauriniacensi  clamorem  meum  ad  vos  deferre  compellor,  qui  sub  obtentu  dilectionis  et 

P.  o.  19 


290  Amadeus   Ill's  early  life  and  wars 

renewed  domination  in  Turin  may  have  implied,  there  is  no  real  evi- 
dence. So  it  is  safest,  if  we  accept  the  fact,  to  assume  it  did  not 
amount  to  very  much.  The  Abbey  of  Pinerolo  shows  a  suspicious 
rapprochement  to  Arbert  of  Turing  and  later  we  find  some  sort  of  rights 
of  the  Count  of  Savoy  compatible  with  communal  independence  ^  It  is 
natural  to  suspect  that  in  practice  the  Count's  prerogatives  were  some 
commercial  and  judicial  profits,  such  as  the  Counts  of  S.  Bonifazio 
seem  to  have  had  at  Verona,  and  that  any  real  power  of  his  came  from 
his  heading  a  party  in  the  town. 

In  distant  connection  with  these  Italian  vicissitudes  there  appears 
to  stand  the  dispute  between  the  Bishops  of  Turin  and  Maurienne  for 
the  diocesan  control  of  the  Val  di  Susa.  Ever  since  the  time  of 
Ardoin  III  the  valley,  once  in  Burgundian  Maurienne,  had  belonged 
to  Italian  Turin  I  But  in  11 26  we  find  a  change  in  process.  Amadeus, 
then  Bishop  of  Maurienne,  seized  on  the  parish  church  of  Sta  Maria  di 
Susa,  and  thus  began  a  three-cornered  dispute,  for  Sta  Maria  was  sub- 
ject to  the  Canons  of  Oulx,  and  the  latter  acknowledged  the  Bishop  of 
Turin^  In  11 23  Pope  Calixtus  II  decided  in  Bishop  Amadeus'  favour 
on  both  points  :  we  may  suppose  his  nephew  Amadeus  III  wished  his 
vassal  the  Bishop  of  Maurienne  to  exercise  the  diocesan  rights  and  not 
the  foreigners  of  Oulx  or  Turing  None  the  less  the  Canons  of  Oulx 
refused  to  submit,  nor  did  the  Bishop  of  Turin  give  up  his  claims''. 
At  last  on  his  journey  toward  France  in  1147^  Pope   Eugenius  III 

pacis  mihi  perfidiae  jaculum  nequiter  intorsit."  Gallia  Christiana,  iv.  116,  quoting, 
but  giving  no  authority,  says  that  in  1138  Peter  was  elected  arbiter  between  the 
two,  but  could  not  fully  reconcile  thena.  The  date  (1138)  seems  probable;  since 
Arbert  became  Bishop  c.  1135  or  11 36,  Peter  died  in  Palestine  in  May  11 39  (Gams, 
p.  571),  and  Lothar's  presence  in  Italy  1 136-7  would  exclude  any  arbitrating  in 
those  years. 

^  Cartario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  n. -p.  6^.  See  Gabotto,  (?/.  aV.  p.  112.  I  confess 
that  to  me  the  Bishop's  diploma,  with  its  insistence  on  the  fact  that  he  is  obeying 
papal  bulls,  has  a  very  sullen  sound. 

2  Car.  Keg.  CCCLV.  (Carte  del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  ill.  2,  p.  416).  This  is  an 
alliance  between  the  Romagnano  and  Turin  in  1176.  Hostilities  against  the  Emperor 
and  Count  of  Savoy  and  their  missi  are  excepted,  the  two  thus  being  equated  as 
having  official  rights.     But  see  on  this  treaty  below,  p.  336. 

3  Car.  Reg.  cxxiv.  (1042)  {Carte. ..d' Oulx,  B.S.S.S.  XLV.  p.  i);  Carte... d' Oulx, 
(1095),  p.  37  ;  Carte... d' Oulx  (1116),  p.  97.  Cf.  Carte... d^ Oulx  (c.  1147),  p.  116, 
which  states  the  inclusion  of  the  valley  in  the  Turin  diocese  before  1029. 

^  Carte... d' Oulx  (1120),  pp.  105,  106,  107. 

•^  Carte .. .arcivescovili  di  Torino,  B.S.S.S.  xxxvi.  (1123),  p.  16,  "  Preposituram 
preterea  Secusiensis  ecclesie  B.  Marie  proprietario  jure,  atque  ipsam  civitatem 
Secusiam  cum  omnibus  appendiciis  suisparrochiali  jure...Mauriannensi  ecclesie...  con - 
firmamus." 

^  Cf.  e.g.  Carte... d' Oulx  (1143),  p.  115  and  id.  (?  1147),  p.  116. 

^  See  below,  p.  309. 


Quarrels  with  France  and  the  Dauphin        291 

declared  in  favour  both  of  the  Canons  and  the  Bishop  of  Turing 
Perhaps  Amadeus  III  was  anxious  now  to  have  an  extra  hold  on  Turin. 
In  1 148  the  then  Bishop  of  Maurienne  made  a  new  appeal  to  the  Pope, 
which  was  rebuffed*;  and  in  spite  of  one  or  two  later  incidents^  the 
diocesan  boundaries  were  never  changed  again  ^  The  greater  part  of 
the  valley  under  S.  Giusto  monastery  was  extra-diocesan  after  all*. 

The  next  series  of  events  in  Amadeus'  life  are  closely  connected 
with  his  marriage  alliances.  The  first  and  least  important  arose  out  of 
the  death  of  his  brother-in-law,  Louis  VI  of  France,  in  1137.  Soon 
after  that  event  the  Venerable  Peter,  the  Abbot  of  Cluny,  addressed  a 
curious  appeal  to  Amadeus  on  behalf  of  his  nephew,  the  young  King, 
Louis  VII.  Some  request  of  Louis  was  to  be  granted  :  the  sins  of  the 
fathers  should  not  be  visited  on  an  innocent  boy ;  nor  the  past  faults, 
which  the  Queen  or  the  royal  councillors  might  have  committed.  The 
Abbot  pointed  out  the  glory  of  the  royal  alliance  and  the  Count's  duty 
of  exercising  a  paternal  solicitude  for  his  nephew  and  giving  him  counsel 
in  the  affairs  of  his  kingdom.  Unfortunately  the  actual  request  was 
reserved  for  the  young  King's  ambassadors  to  tell;  so  we  can  only 
guess  what  it  was.  But  the  tone  of  the  letter  implies  a  serious  quarrel 
and  consequent  estrangement  between  Amadeus  and  his  royal  kindred, 
for  which  a  dispute  over  Queen  Adelaide's  dowry  would  provide  a  very 
probable  cause.  Evidently,  too,  the  Count  had  received  some  damage  in 
the  conflict.  What  Louis'  request  can  have  been  is  still  darker ;  but 
apparently  help  in  his  duchy  of  Aquitaine  would  suit  the  case,  for  the 
acquisition  of  that  great  province,  which  Louis  obtained  by  his  marriage 
with  the  heiress,  Eleanor,  is  cautiously  alluded  to  in  the  letter.  Whether 
Amadeus  did  anything  or  not,  is  also  obscure,  but  he  remained  on  good 
terms  with  his  nephew,  as  is  shown  by  his  second  crusade*^. 

^  Carte... d'Oulx  (9  Feb.  1147),  p-  117  [Jaffe,  9004]:  "ipsam  B.  Marie  ecclesiam 
...Ulciensi  ecclesie  restituimus."  The  diocesan  question  seems  to  have  been  settled 
at  the- Council  of  Rheims  in  1148  (cf.  below,  note  2).  On  14  May  1148  the  Pope 
describes  Susa  as  being  in  Turin  diocese  {Carte... d'Oulx,  p.  122  [Jaffe,  9261]). 

-  Hist.  Pont.  {M.G.H.  Script,  xx.  533),  "  Episcopus  Maurianensis...questionem 
proposuit  finium  regundorum,  rogans  ut  eum  liceret  egredi  de  cavernis  montium  sicut 
decessoribus  suis  antiquitus  licitum  fuerat."  Like  other  complainants  at  this  time 
(July,  1 148)  he  was  told  the  decrees  at  Rheims  Council  must  be  upheld. 

^  Anthelm  of  Maurienne  made  a  visitation  as  far  as  Avigliana  in  1262. 

^  On  the  subject  cf.  Billiet  in  Mdm.  Acad.  Savoie,  Series  11.  T.  iv.  pp.  326-33 
and  Savio,  Gli  antichi  vescovi  d' Italia,  pp.  233  and  349.  There  are  omissions  in  both 
however,  and  the  share  of  the  Canons  of  Oulx  in  these  transactions  is  obscured. 

'  Carte... arcivescovili  di  Torino,  B.S.S.S.  xxxvi.  (1123),  p.  16,  " salva  dignitate 
Abacie  S.  Justi  que  sub  Romane  ecclesie  jurisdictione  consistit." 

®  The  interpretation,  as  to  Amadeus'  grudge  against  Louis  VL  given  in  the  text, 
is  that  of  Cibrario  {Storia  delta  tnonarchia  ecc.  Bk  II.  Chap.  III.  pp.  18 1-3).  Cf. 
Gerbaix  de  Sonnaz  {Studi  storici  ecc.  Bk  iv.  Cap.  I.  p.  3)  and  Hirsch,  Studien  zur 

19 — 2 


292  Amadeus  Ill's  early  life  and  wars 

Not  more  fortunate  were  Amadeus'  relations  to  his  other  brother-in- 
law,  Guigues  IV,  the  Dauphin  of  Albon.  Since  his  first  wife  was  alive 
in  July  1133',  and  Humbert,  son  of  his  second  wife,  appears  in  a  grant 
of  January  1137',  it  is  probable  that  Amadeus  III  became  a  widower 
in  1 133  and  married  again  in  1134.  His  second  wife  was  Matilda, 
otherwise  Majes,  daughter  of  Guigues  III  of  Albon  and  the  latter's 
wife,  Queen  Matilda^  She  or  her  dowry  was  presumably  the  cause  of 
quarrel^  We  hear  of  her  brother  the  Dauphin  invading  Savoy  in 
1 1 40  and  besieging  Montmelian.  But  he  was  there  attacked  by  Count 
Amadeus,  defeated  and  mortally  wounded  in  a  hard  fought  battle  \ 

It  must  have  been  the  eldest  daughter  of  this  second  marriage  of 
Amadeus,    that   was   the    Matilda   who    married   Affonso  I,    King   of 

Geschichte  Ludzaigs,  vil.  p.  17.      It  has  however  been  opposed  by  Hellmann,  op.  cit. 

P-  35- 

The  Venerable  Peter's  letter  (Migne,  CLXXXix.  p.  250)  has  the  following  salient 
passages  :  "  Gloriosus  rex  Francorum  Ludovicus  et  ante  miserat  et  nunc  iterum  nobis 
misit  nuntios  suos,  quos  et  vobis  dirigi,  et  per  manum  nostram  quod  a  vobis  petierint 
impleri,  rogavit....Cumque  ipse  superna  gratia,  et  regni  terminos  pene  duplicando  et 
juveniles  annos  virtutibus  adornando,  summa  vestri  generis  gloria  sit,  non  debet 
aliquam  in  precibus  suis  pati  repulsam....Et  cum  derivato  a  patre  nomine  regis 
patruus  dicamini,  decet  vos  et  ejus  regno  consulere  et  ipsi  ut  filio  in  omnibus  provi- 
dere.  Quod  utrumque  simul  implebitis,  si  eum  in  present!  negotio  audieritis.  Sed 
nolui  illud  his  quas  mitto  litteris  inserere,  quia  plenius  id  ab  ore  nuntiantis  quam  a 
manu  scribentis  accipere  poteritis.  Hoc  postquam  agnoveritis,  quod  tamen  et  jam 
audistis,  oro  ne  innocent!  puero  patrum  peccata,  ne  regina(e)  vel  regalium  aulicorum 
veteres  forsitan  culpae,  novo  regi  noceant." 

Adelaide  lost  influence  on  her  son's  accession  and  soon  married  Matthew,  Seigneur 
de  Montmorency.     She  died  in  11 54. 

1  See  above,  p.  284,  n.  3. 

2  Car.  Reg.  CCLXXiii.  {M.H.P.  Chart.  11.  223),  "cum  uxore  mea  comitissa  viz. 
M.,  laudante  filio  nostro  Umberto."  Cf.  above,  p.  289,  n.  3.  See  also  Car.  Reg. 
CCLXXXViii.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  60),  "  Amadeus  comes  et  marchio  et  Majes 
comitissa  uxor  ejus  et  Umbertus  eonim  filius." 

^  Her  name,  Matilda,  is  given  in  Car.  Reg.  ccxcii.  (Guigue,  Petit  Cartulaire  de 
St  Sulpice  en  Bugey,  p.  2).  That  she  was  daughter  of  Guigues  of  Albon  is  stated  by 
the  Chroniques  which  however  call  her  Guigone.  Chron.  Altacumbae  {M.H.P. 
Script.  II.  671),  which  here  begins  to  merit  some  credence,  merely  says  "uxor  ejus 
filia  comitis  Albonensis." 

*  Her  son,  Humbert  III,  had  claims  on  the  Graisivaudan ;  see  below,  pp.  329 
and  34O. 

5  Chron.  Lat.  Sab.  Geneal.  Delph.  {M.H.P.  Script.  11.  667),  "  Iste  Guigo  in 
prelio  duro  habito  inter  eum  et  comitem  Sabaudie  versus  Montemmelianum  letaliter 
vulneratus,  apud  Buxeriam  castrum  suum  apportatus,  infra  paucos  dies  expiravit,  anno 
Domini  millesimo  centesimo  quadragesimo."  More  important  is  the  contemporary 
account  in  Vi.  Margaritae  Biirgundiae  Guillermi  Monach.  (Martene,  Amplissima 
Collectio,  VI.  1203),  "Dum  inter  ipsum  et  Savoiensem  comitem  guerra  exerceretur 
asperrima,  comes  Dalphinus  in  praelio  vulneratus,  dolore  vulneris  coarctante,  vitae 
terminam  posuit."     The  last  passage  has  escaped  the  notice  of  recent  historians. 


Amadeus   III   and  the  monks  293 

Portugal,  in  the  spring  of  1146.  Even  so  she  can  hardly  have  been 
more  than  ten  years  old,  and  she  must  be  another  instance  of  the  early 
marriages  so  favoured  by  the  Humbertine  housed  I  mention  her  here 
to  show  the  widespread  influence  of  Amadeus.  Links  with  the  Iberian 
peninsula  were  probably  provided  by  her  maternal  grandmother,  Queen 
Matilda,  and  the  bridegroom's  Burgundian  origin 2. 


Section  III.    Amadeus  Ill's  government  and  death. 

So  far  we  have  dealt  with  Amadeus  Ill's  purely  secular  activity,  in 
Burgundy  that  is,  for  in  Italy  the  two  aspects  of  his  religious  poHcy 
are  not  to  be  divided,  and  at  the  risk  of  cynicism  it  is  necessary 
to  emphasize  chiefly  its  poUtical  bearing.  But  in  Burgundy  a  quite 
genuine  religious  side  of  Amadeus'  character  comes  openly  into  play, 
as  well  as  that  desire  to  improve  his  territory  which  I  have  already  had 
occasion  to  remark  as  typical  of  a  grand  seigneur  of  the  early  Middle 
Ages.  His  foundations,  direct  or  indirect,  were  very  numerous  for  his 
means,  although  it  is  true  that  the  preference  of  the  Cistercians,  whom 
he  most  favoured,  for  sequestered  forest  lands  made  it  easier  for  the 
Count  of  barren  Savoy  to  gratify  them. 

His  first  benefaction  of  this  kind  dates  from  1108,  before  he  was  of 
age.  In  that  year  the  Canons  of  St  Maurice  founded  the  daughter- 
house  of  Abbondance  in  a  sequestered  valley  of  New-Chablaisl 
Abbondance  soon  became  wealthy  and  powerful,  with  daughter-houses 
of  its  own,  and  doubtless  contributed  to  civilize  the  district  and  support 
the  Count's  authority  in  one  of  the  most  unruly  portions  of  his  domains. 
Amadeus  being  the  lay-Abbot  of  St  Maurice,  the  grant  really  pro- 
ceeded from  him\  Perhaps  the  new  foundation  was  made  partly  in 
rivalry  of  Aulphs,  so  near  to  it,  which  owed  its  origin  to  the  great  local 
seigneurs.  It  is  characteristic  of  the  stricter  asceticism  of  the  new  wave 
of  monastic  fervour,  both  that  the  grant  is  small  and  that  the  feudal 
rights  conveyed  over  the  forest-valley  in  which  Abbondance  was  erected 
are  only  those  of  hunting.     The   new   monks  did  not  wish    for  the 

1  See  Car.  Reg.  CCXC.  ccxci.  cccxvii.  and  Cibrario  in  Mem.  Accad.  Scieiiza 
To7'ino,  Ser.  Ii.  Vol.  xi.  pp.  287  ff.  In  11 55  she  had  three  surviving  children.  She 
died  5  Dec.  1 158. 

^  Chron.  Lat.  Sab.  Geneal.  Delph.  {M.H.P.  Script,  loc.  cit^  calls  her  grandmother 
Queen  of  Castile,  and  this  Spanish  origin  agrees  very  well  with  the  title  Queen,  borne 
then  by  Spanish  princesses.  See  Cibrario,  op.  cit.  Affonso's  father  was  son  of  a 
Capetian  Duke  of  Burgundy. 

^  Car.  Reg.  CCXLVii.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  29).  There  are  curious  regulations 
about  the  hunting. 

*  Cf.  Bollea,  Le  prime  relazioni  ecc.  pp.  67-8. 


294  Amadeus  Ill's  government  and  death 

world's  neighbourhood  or  a  seigneurial  position.     Later  they  became 
Cistercians. 

Amadeus'  next  foundation  is  more  interesting  for  his  personal 
history.  For  it  he  made  use  of  an  old  Cluniac  priory,  St  Sulpice  en 
Bugey.  The  first  step  was  to  turn  it  into  a  Carthusian  Priory,  as  such 
we  find  it  in  December  1120'.  It  was  not  far  from  Virieu-le-Grand, 
and  a  considerable  circumscription  of  forest  land  was  given  to  it,  with 
warranty  against  disturbance  by  building,  hunting  or  fighting ;  till  some 
time  before  the  close  of  1134  (and  probably  before  1125)  his  grants  to 
it  were  summed  up  in  two  charters".  The  monks  received  free  pas- 
turage in  all  his  land ;  and  any  acquisitions  they  might  make  from  fiefs 
held  of  him  should  become  their  alods^  These  confirmations  (which 
are  evidence  that  St  Sulpice  had  now  become  a  Cistercian  monastery) 
seem  to  have  been  made  on  the  day  that  his  wife  (i.e.  Adelaide)  at  last 
bore  a  child,  and  we  may  suspect  that  the  infant  was  Amadeus  Ill's 
daughter  Alice  (Adelaide)  who  seems  to  have  been  much  older  than 
his  other  children*.  Evidently  we  may  trust  the  tradition  of  the  Chro- 
niques  that  St  Sulpice  was  founded  by  the  Count  in  hopes  of  an  heir^ 
Her  marriage  to  Humbert  III^  son  of  Guichard  III,  Sire  de  Beaujeu, 

Car.  Reg.  CCLix.  (Guigue,  Petit  Cartul.  de  St  Sulpice  en  Bugey,  p.  13).  Guigue, 
op.  cit.  p.  viii  says  St  Sulpice  was  first  a  Cluniac  Priory,  then  a  Chartreuse,  then 
c.  1 1 30  a  Cistercian  Abbey. 

-  Car.  Reg.  CCLX.  (Guigue,  op.  cit.  p.  4)  and  Guigue,  op.  cit.  p.  i.  They  are 
obviously  contemporary,  both  containing  the  reference  to  the  birth  of  his  first  child 
("  antequam  de  uxore  mea  infantem  haberem,"  Guigue,  p.  i  ;  and  "ante  banc  diem, 
scilicet  ante  quam  de  uxore  mea  infantem  habuissem,"  Reg.  CCLX.).  Now  in  cclx. 
Ponce  II,  who  had  resigned  before  the  end  of  1134,  is  still  Bishop  of  Belley. 
Further,  since  Guichard  III,  de  Beaujeu's  interest  in  St  Sulpice  (see  below,  in  text) 
begins  c.  1134,  Alice,  Amadeus'  eldest  daughter,  can  hardly  have  been  in  11 34  less 
than  ten  years  old.     She  had  a  son  Guichard  in  1147  (see  below,  p.  295,  n.  9). 

^  "  Quicquid  de  feudis  meis  adquirere  potuerint  in  mundum  alodium  possideant." 
The  pasturage-right  was  a  natural  ambition  of  the  wool-raising  Cistercians,  although 
it  does  not  exclude  Carthusians  (see  below,  p.  297).  The  personal  employment  of 
the  monks  in  farming  or  parochial  work  was  characteristic  of  the  new  orders. 

*  See  above,  n.  2,  and  p.  295,  n.  9.  Humbert  III  of  Savoy  was  son  of 
Amadeus  Ill's  second  wife,  married  after  July  1133  (see  above,  p.  284,  n.  3,  and 
p.  290).     For  the  daughters,  see  above,  p.   290,  and  below,  p.   313. 

5  M.H.P.  Script.  11.  105-6.  The  legend  actually  says  as  a  thank-offering  for  an 
heir.  I  imagine  it  is  her  birth  which  caused  the  disappointment  related  in  Vi. 
S.  Hugonis  Gratian.  (AA.  SS.  April  i,  p.  45),  "  Nam  cum  falsus  rumor  exisset  quod 
comiti  Amedeo,  qui  comitis  Umberti,  patris  viz.  sui,  secutus  exemplum,  non  exiguam 
beato  seni  reverentiam  exhibebat,  filius  natus  fiiisset."  St  Hugh  refused  to  go  to 
baptize  the  child,  on  the  ground  that  it  did  not  matter  who  performed  the  rite.  Alice 
appears  as  Aalasia  and  Alisia  in  Car.  Reg.  ccxcii.  (Guigue,  op.  cit.  p.  2),  and  Guigue, 
op.  cit.  p.  41.     She  has  the  title  of  Countess  like  her  aunt  Agnes  de  Bourbon. 

*  Car.  Reg.  ccc.  ;  the  first  quotation  there  has  been  used  by  M.  Guigue  (see  above, 
p.  243,  n.  i)  and  M.  de  Manteyer  to  prove  that  Auxilia,  wife  of  Humbert  II  de 


St  Sulpice.     Alice  de  Beaujeu  295 

seems  to  have  taken  place  at  an  early  age;  for  c.  1134-5^  we  find 
Guichard  III  taking  an  interest  in  the  Abbey  of  St  Sulpice  and  con- 
firming Amadeus  Ill's  grants^.  This  would  be  especially  natural,  if 
Alice  were  then  Amadeus'  only  child  and  heiress,  although  perhaps 
the  fact  that  her  dowry  seems  to  have  lain  round  about  is  a  sufficient 
reason  ^  Count  Amadeus  remained  watchful  over  this  foundation  of 
his  for  the  rest  of  his  reign.  It  was  consecrated  by  Archbishop  Peter 
of  Lyons  about  1 137-8  at  his  special  request  1  Popes  Innocent  II  and 
Lucius  IIP,  Archbishop  Amadeus  of  Lyons*  and  Bishop  Berlio  of 
Belley^  were  all  induced  by  him  to  confirm  its  bounds ;  his  son  Hum- 
bert III  was  also  made  to  concur^  and  one  of  his  own  latest  charters  is 
a  confirmation  in  its  favour^ 

Beaujeu,  c.  1090,  was  a  daughter  of  Amadeus  II  of  Savoy;  but  the  contents  of  the 
document  (Guigue,  Cartul.  de  Beaujeti,  p.  14)  which  is  an  account  of  former 
donations  show  that  Humbert  III  of  Beaujeu  is  intended.  It  says  :  "  Quod  etiam 
Humbertus  Beljocensis,  ille  qui  filiam  Amedei,  comitis  Savoiensis,  habuit  in  uxorem, 
sicut  singuli  antecessores  sui  diligenter  observare  studuit  et  confirmare  ;  nam  et  de 
feudis  que  ab  eo  habebantur,  sicut  et  antecessores  sui  fecerant,  si  quis  vellet  dare  vel 
vendere  predicte  ecclesie  in  alodo  possidendum  concessit."  Thus  the  donor  made  a 
grant  exactly  analogous  to  those  of  Amadeus  III  of  Savoy  (see  e.g.  pp.  294,  n.  3,  272, 
n.  2),  and  a  series  of  his  predecessors  have  favoured  the  Canons  of  Beaujeu,  who  were 
only  founded  in  1076  (see  Guigue,  op.  cit.  p.  38).  The  title  Count  of  Savoy  also  does 
not  favour  Amadeus  II  (see  Savio,  I prinii  conti,  p.  487). 

1  Car.  Reg.  CCLXi.  (Guigue,  Petit  Cartul.  de  St  Sulpice  en  Bitgey,  p.  17)  and 
Guigue,  op.  cit.  p.  32,  dated  by  means  of  the  mention  of  Berlio,  Bishop  of  Belley, 
known  in  1134  and  1135.  As  it  is  likely  Humbert  III  of  Savoy  was  born  in  1135, 
1 1 34  would  be  the  probable  date. 

2  To  1134-5  also  I  attribute  the  confirmatory  charter  of  Guichard  de  Beaujeu 
(Guigue,  op.  cit.  p.  41,  from  Estiennot's  MS.  copy),  which  bears  the  date  10  Jan. 
MCLXXV.  (reading  Mcxxxv.).  It  mentions  Countess  Alice  and  his  son  Humbert  III, 
de  Beaujeu,  who  succeeded  him  in  1137. 

^  It  seems  that  Alice's  dowry  consisted  of  Virieu-le-Grand,  Cordon,  and  Chateau- 
neuf  in  the  county  of  Belley  {L" Art  de  verifier  les  dates,  il.  4745  [ed.  1784]).  It  gives 
one  probable  origin  for  the  homage  of  Beaujeu  to  Savoy  in  the  thirteenth  century. 
See  above,  p.  78.  It  seems  likely  that  it  also  at  first  included  Rossillon  and  Pierre- 
chatel  (see  below,  p.  340  and  n.  i).  Virieu-le-Grand  and  Val  Romey  remained  fiefs  of 
Beaujeu  till  1285,  when  they  were  recovered  by  Savoy  (M.  C.  Guigue,  Topographic 
hist,  de  VAin,  p.  435). 

*  Car.  Heg.  CCLXXXI.  and  CCLXXXII.  (Guigue,  Petit  Cartul.  de  St  Sulpice  en  Bugey, 
p.  1 1),  dated  by  the  complaint  re  Arbert,  Bishop  of  Turin.     See  above,  p.  289,  n.  5. 

5  Guigue,  op.  cit.  p.  14  (23  June,  1142)  and  Guigue,  op.  cit.  p.  16  (10  Nov. 
1144). 

*  Guigue,  op.  cit.  p.  21. 

7  Car.  Reg.  CCLXi.  (see  above,  n.  i). 

^  Car.  Reg.  cclxxvi.  (Guigue,  op.  cit.  p.  10). 

9  Car.  Reg.  ccxcn.  (Guigue,  op.  cit.  p.  2).  Amadeus  confirms  his  former  grants, 
with  the  following  explanation,  "  Ne  quis  de  familia  nostri  generis  huic  donation! 
calumpniam  inferre  presumat,"  he  declares  he  made  these  grants  "  ante  quam  de  uxore 


296  Amadeus  Ill's  government  and  death 

More  famous  eventually  was  Amadeus'  second  Cistercian  foundation, 
Hautecombe  on  the  Lac  de  Bourget,  the  final  charter  of  which  dates 
from  c  1 140'.  Like  St  Sulpice  it  had  no  grant  of  jurisdiction  and  few 
lands,  which  however  were  given  wholly  from  the  Count's  own  property. 
It  was  this  Abbey,  and  not  St  Sulpice,  which  succeeded  Cluniac  Le 
Bourget  as  the  favourite  family  foundation  of  the  House  of  Savoy.  For 
many  generations  its  members  were  buried  there,  choosing  a  home  for 
the  dead  more  delightful  than  those  of  the  living,  till  Victor  Amadeus  II 
built  the  new  mausoleum  of  Superga.  Little  remains  of  the  ancient 
structure,  which  was  wrecked  and  desecrated  during  the  French  Revo- 
lution. Later  it  was  very  beautifully  restored  and  a  series  of  memorial 
tombs  set  up.     But  the  dust  they  honour  is  not  there. 

"  Or  le  bagna  la  pioggia  e  muove  il  vento." 

Yet  a  third  Cistercian  House  owes  its  origin  to  Amadeus  III.  This 
was  Chezery  on  the  R.  Valserine  north  of  the  Rhone  in  a  retired  valley 
under  the  Jura  range.  The  legend  tells  that  its  founder  was  given  a 
roving  commission  by  the  Count  to  find  a  valley  in  his  lands  fit  for  the 
pious  seclusion  of  his  order,  and  at  last  found  his  desire  in  this  deserted 
recess  of  the  forest^.  Be  this  as  it  may,  the  Abbey  was  founded  on  the 
29th  August  1 140,  and  consecrated  two  years  later.  Wide  limits  were 
marked  out  for  it^     And  it  existed  in  long  obscurity. 

mea,  Mathildi  nomine,  liberos  aliquos  procreassem."  Alice  and  her  son  Guichard  I, 
and  Count  Humbert  III,  all  "  laudant."  Thus  they  bar  their  claims.  Amadeus'  other 
children  were  barred  by  being /(?j/«a// as  to  the  grant.  Humbert  III,  although /(?j-/- 
natiis,  naturally  participates  as  heir-apparent. 

1  Car.  Reg.  CCLXIV.  (Guichenon,  Pi-euves,  p-  31)-  At  Hautecombe  was  written  at 
the  close  of  the  fourteenth  century  the  Chron.  Altacumbae,  the  earliest  chronicle  of 
the  House  of  Savoy.  Erroneous  as  it  is  in  its  earlier  scanty  notices,  it  is  more  valuable 
than  the  Chroniques.  For  the  date  of  Amadeus'  charter,  see  LuUin  et  Lefort,  Regesle 
Genevois,  p.  442,  No.  275. 

2  Chezery,  however,  had  belonged  to  the  Cluniac  St  Victor  of  Geneva :  see 
the  letter  of  Peter  the  Venerable  in  Mem.  Doc.  Genev.  xv.  11.  3,  "  lUius 
(S.  Bernardi)  precibus...inclinati,  donamus  tam  ecclesiam  et  villam  de  Chysirai, 
cum  omnibus  pertinenciis  suis,  viz.  quidquid  in  ilia  in  omnibus  et  per  omnia  habe- 
bamus,  et  quidquid  alii  ibidem  a  nobis  habebant,  que  pertinebat  ad  custodiam  et 
possessionem  monachorum  nostrorum  S.  Victoris  de  Gehenna,  laudantibus  eisdem 
monachis  S.  Victoris  et  concedentibus.  Dominus  quoque  Ardutius  Gebennensis 
episcopus,  ad  pacem  inter  nostros  et  vestros  reformandam,  dedit  nobis  libere  ecclesiam 
de  Vallibus  et  ecclesiam  de  Altavilla."  We  may,  therefore,  probably  take  it  that 
Amadeus  Ill's  control  of  the  valley  of  the  Valserine  was  due  to  his  being  advocate  of 
St  Victor  of  Geneva  in  succession  to  his  father  Humbert  II  (see  above,  pp.  85  and 
242).  For  the  rights  of  the  advocates  of  St  Victor,  see  Gingins  La  Sarra,  Hist....des 
Equestres,  M.D.R.  XX.  123.  Cf.  for  the  legend  of  foundation,  which  in  view  of  the 
preceding  does  not  seem  true,  Depery,  Hist.  Hagiolog.  de  Belley,  i.  358,  and  Gingins 
La  Sarra,  Histoirc.des  Equestres,  M.D.R.  XX.  130-1. 

^  Besson,  M^moires,  etc.  (ed.  187 1),  p.  139.  The  consecration  was  on  the 
ist  June,   1 142.     Amadeus'  charter  has  not  been  recovered. 


Reform  of  St  Maurice  297 

Last  of  all  these  direct  foundations  of  Amadeus  came  the  Chartreuse 
of  Arvieres  on  the  wooded  heights  above  the  Val  Romey  to  the  north  of 
the  county  of  Belley  and  in  the  diocese  of  Geneva.  Here  again  legend 
steps  in  and  says  that  he  vowed  a  Chartreuse  at  his  battle  with  the 
Dauphin  in  1140.  But  all  we  know  is  that  he  confirms  the  limits 
which  the  new  Carthusians  applied  for  and  gave  them  grazing  rights 
along  the  Mont  du  Grand  Colombier.  His  son-in-law,  Humbert  IH  of 
Beaujeu,  added  a  confirmation  and  a  small  gift  and  some  years  after  his 
son,  Humbert  HI  of  Savoy,  another  confirmation'. 

Besides  these  benefactions,  Amadeus  carried  through  a  reform  which 
was  practically  a  new  foundation.  For  fifty  years  the  great  Abbey  of 
St  Maurice  had  been  under  the  House  of  Savoy.  In  11 16  Amadeus 
could  style  himself  Comes  et  Abbas  ecclesiae  S.  Mauridi'^;  and  his  brother 
Raynald  was  Provost.  It  seems  that  the  Count  and  Provost  had  be- 
come possessed  of  the  best  domains.  The  Canons  had  barely  enough 
to  live  upon ;  they  were  secular  in  most  senses  of  the  term,  members  of 
Chablaisian  noble  families,  and  were  largely  non-resident.  The  services 
were  being  intermitted.  Now,  however,  Amadeus  took  the  matter  in 
hand.  With  St  Hugh  of  Grenoble  he  came  in  March  11 28  to  the 
Abbey.  Four  measures  seem  to  have  been  decided  on,  Amadeus' 
renunciation  of  his  lay-abbacy,  the  unwilling  resignation  of  Raynald, 
the  installation  of  Canons  Regular,  and  the  resumption  of  improperly 
alienated  lands^  To  these  were  added  by  Pope  Honorius  II  the  elec- 
tion of  an  Abbot^  and  by  Pope  Innocent  II  a  general  confirmation^ 
In  spite  of  various  troubles,  which  I  will  deal  with  later,  St  Maurice 
now  began  to  prosper  and  grow  wealthy.     But  of  course  the  Count, 

^  The  charter  of  foundation  is  Car.  y?^,f.  CCLXXXVi.  of  which  the  full  text  was 
published  from  the  original  for  the  first  time  by  M.  Guigue,  Notice  sur  la  Chartreuse 
d^ Arvieres,  p.  63.  The  above  account  is  deduced  from  it.  The  Carthusians  call 
Amadeus,  "  karissimo  domino  nostro  et  venerabili  ac  magnifico  principi  et  comitum 
comiti  ac  marchioni."  Humbert  Ill's  confirmation  is  added  in  another  twelfth  century 
hand.  Humbert  HI  de  Beaujeu's  donation  is  given  in  a  list  of  benefactors,  which 
included  Henry,  King  of  England,  printed  in  Guigue,  op.  cit.  p.  66,  and  excerpted  in 
Car.  Slip.  XXXIII.  The  terminus  ad  quern  of  the  foundation  is  provided  by  a  bull 
of  confirmation  of  Pope  Lucius  HI,  dated  30  April,  1144  (Guigue,  op.  cit.  p.  17). 

2  M.D.R.  XVIII.  355. 

'  Car.  Reg.  CCLXVI.  (Guichenon,  Preuvcs,  p.  31);  30  March,  1128.  See  also 
below,  p.  318,  n.  3.  It  was  not  till  30  March,  1 143,  however  (Car.  Reg.  cci.xxxviii. 
Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  60),  that  Amadeus,  his  wife  Majes  and  son  Humbert, 
surrendered  the  election  of  the  provost  to  the  Canons.  They  retained  their  receptus 
and  the  justae  consuetiidiiies  quae  ad  coniitatum  pertinent,  on  whicli,  see  below, 
pp.  431—2.     Strictly  speaking  the  coniitatus  should  be  that  of  Chablais. 

*  Car.  Reg.  ccLXVii.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  32). 

^  Pflugk-IIartung,  Acta  Roman.  Pontif.  inedita,  II.  320;  22  Oct.  11 36.  Aimerad 
was  then  Prior.     No  Abbot  is  mentioned. 


298  Amadeus  Ills  government  and  death 

although  he  abandoned  the  direct  lordship  and  ordinary  jurisdiction  of 
the  Abbacy,  retained  the  comitatiis  in  income  and  jurisdiction,  as  well  as 
the  feudal  superiority  over  the  Abbey  and  the  office  of  its  advocate. 
Thus  his  hold  over  Old-Chablais,  probably  fortified  by  the  direct  pos- 
session of  the  castle  of  Chillon  and  the  coast  near,  was  secure  enough. 

These  were  Amadeus'  chief  works  as  a  favourer  of  religion  in 
Burgundy.  The  Abbey  of  Tamie,  which  was  founded  in  1x32  on 
the  borders  of  Savoy  and  the  Genevois  in  the  Bauges  by  Archbishop 
Peter  I  of  Tarentaise\  had  his  approval  and  a  small  donation  from 
him-.  Lastly,  I  should  add  his  benefactions  to  the  Hospital  of  the 
Great  St  Bernard,  to  Le  Bourget  and  the  sees  of  Tarentaise  and  Aosta. 
All  have  a  certain  political  bearing,  and  that  of  the  three  last  is  so  dis- 
tinct that  it  will  best  be  reserved  till  I  come  to  his  internal  government. 
As  to  the  Great  St  Bernard,  he  was  doubtless  anxious  to  make  it  as  easy 
for  travellers  as  the  Mont  Cenis.  His  grants  to  the  Hospital  are  three 
in  number  and  dated  in  1124",  1125^  and  1137^  He  confirms  the 
grants  of  local  nobles  made  from  fiefs  held  of  him ;  he  grants  that  all 
such  gifts  shall  be  alods  of  the  monastery ;  and  with  his  infant  son  he 
makes  a  small  gift  of  his  own. 

From  these  monastic  foundations,  which,  however  religious  in 
essence,  had  a  marked  political  and  secular  impress  also,  it  is  a 
natural  transition  to  Amadeus  Hi's  secular  government.  Here,  of 
course,  the  traces  which  exist  of  his  policy  and  of  the  limits  of  his 
actual  power  are  few.     Nevertheless  some  such  are  to  be  found. 

The  leading  feature  of  his  time  is  that  feudalism  is  now  full-grown. 
Unfortunately  there  is  not  much  evidence  with  regard  to  lay  fiefs,  but 
the  grants  in  favour  of  ecclesiastics  imply  similar  privileges  of  the  laity  ^. 
Churchmen  would  have  less  power  to  seize  on  feudal  jurisdiction,  and  it 
would  be  in  the  interest  of  the  ruler  to  level  up  his  ecclesiastic  subjects 
and  vassals  with  the  lay,  as  a  counterweight  to  the  latter.      Hence  the 

^   Gallia  Christiana,  xil.  379. 

2  Vi.  S.  Petri  Taratiias.  (AA.  SS.  Mai  II.  p.  325),  Bk  i.  Cap.  i.,  "  Providerat 
autem  Dominus  ulmum  congruam  huic  viti  et  aliis  in  eadem  tunc  fructificantibus 
regione,  illustrem  principeni  et  bonorum  memoria  dignum  marchionem  Italiae,  Sab- 
audiae  et  Mauriennae  comitem  Amedeum.  Hie  devotus  admodum  viro  Dei  praeter 
alia  beneficia  horreum  quoque  cum  vineis,  quod  Montem-melioratum  vocant,  ejus 
coenobio  contulit;  ut  inter  arduos  montes  haberet  quo  diverteret,  quando  eum 
(S.  Petrum),  in  quo  sibi  plurimum  complacebat,  concilii  gratia  accersiret." 

3  Miscell.  Valdost.,  B.S.S.S.  xvii.  p.  135. 

•*  Car.  Peg.  CCLXli.  (A/isc.  Valdost.  p.  85,  where  facsimile).  Cf.  above,  p.  272, 
n.   2. 

5  Car.  Reg.  CCLXXVii.  (Misc.  Valdost.  p.  87,  where  facsimile). 

®  i.e.  in  the  twelfth  century,  as  to  these  belated  grants.  Even  earlier  the  grants  of 
mere  "immunitas"  were  on  the  model  of  that  existing  for  the  royal  demesne  and 
immediate  benefices  (Mayer,  Deutsch.  u.  Frames.  Verfassungsgeschichie,  11.  50-3). 


Feudal  jurisdictions.     The  St  Maurice  charter    299 

charter  of  1 1 04  to  the  Canons  of  Maurienne  has  great  evidential  value. 
The  Count  surrenders  all  profits  of  jurisdiction,  all  tallages  and  military 
service  due  from  the  sub-vassals  of  the  Canons  to  him.  Doubtless  the 
duty  of  holding  the  necessary  courts,  so  far  as  their  estates  went — the 
truest  feudal  criterion — accompanied  the  profits.  Further,  the  former 
immediate  right  of  the  Count  to  tallage  and  military  service  is  converted 
into  a  mediate  one.  The  Count  henceforward  can  only  claim  of  the 
Canons  their  due  services;  they  deal  with  their  sub-vassals \  By  this 
capital  grant  we  may  explain  the  similar  vaguer  one  to  the  Priory  of 
Le  Bourget^.  St  Sulpice,  Hautecombe  and  Arvieres  got  no  jurisdiction 
granted  ;  but  they  were  clearings  on  forest  land''. 

Evidence  of  the  dangerous  independence  of  the  great  lay  vassals  is 
afforded  by  a  charter  concerning  St  Maurice.  At  the  same  time  it 
cannot  be  regarded  as  typical,  for  the  seigneurs  whom  it  concerns 
belonged  to  New-Chablais,  that  part  of  their  dominions  with  which  the 
Counts  of  Savoy  seem  at  this  time  to  have  been  least  in  touch,  to  judge 
from  the  dearth  of  charters.  Another  interest  of  the  proceedings  is  that 
they  give  us  a  glimpse  of  the  Count's  own  court,  which  decided  the 
matter  and  of  its  rules.  The  story  told  by  the  document  is  as  follows  ^ 
Somewhere  about  the  year  iioo  two  brothers,  Sires  d'AUinge  in  New- 
Chablais,  held  apparently  by  usurpation  two  villae  of  St  Maurice, 
Salvan  near  Martigny  and  Othonellum.  Both  came  to  a  bad  end,  but 
their  brother  and  successor,  Gerard,  still  retained  the  villae.  At  last 
on  his  death-bed  he  repented  and  gave  them  back  to  the  Abbey,  on 
condition  that  his  son  Anselm,  a  Canon  of  St  Maurice,  should  hold 
them  for  Ufe.  But  when  Anselm,  too,  died,  his  brother,  a  younger 
Gerard,  then  advocate  of  Allinge^  took  possession  of  them  in  disregard 
of  the  agreement.  The  Canons  first  excommunicated  him,  and  then 
sought  aid  of  their  own  advocate,  Amadeus  IIP.  On  an  appointed  day 
both  parties  appeared  before  Amadeus  at  Agaune.  It  is  very  clear  that 
he  acted  as  suzerain  of  both,  as  well  as  advocate  of  one  party.  Gerard 
was  surrounded  by  a  swarm  of  warlike  kinsmen.  The  Canons  received 
the  support  of  Archbishop  Peter  of  Tarentaise,    Herbert,    Bishop  of 

'  Car.  Reg.  CCXLV.  (Billiet  et  Albrieux,  Charles  de  Maurienne,  Docs.  Acad. 
Savoie,  ii.  p.  20),  "  Remitto  omnes  injurias  et  omnes  tuttas  (  =  toltas)  et  bannos  et 
cavalcatas  omnibus  hominibus  supradictorum  canonicorum,  ne  mihi  quidquam  pre- 
dictorum  faciant,  sed  tantum  canonicis."  But  this  was  later  held  not  to  include 
offences  punished  by  death.     See  below,  pp.  430  and  442-3. 

*  Car.  Reg.  CCLXXX.  (Guichenon,  Preitves,  p.  38),  "  omne  edictum  omnemque 
justitiam  sine  omni  retentione." 

■'  See  above,  pp.  294-7. 

*  Car.  Reg.  CCLXXIX.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doi.  p.  48). 
^  "  Qui  sub  advocati  nomine  in  Alingo  dominabatur. " 

*  "Comitis  Amedei  advocati  scilicet  sui  consilium  et  auxilium  expetierunt." 


3CX)  Amadeus  Ill's  government  and  death 

Aosta,  and  Boso,  Bishop  of  Sion,  and  of  a  less  obvious  guard  derived 
from  the  Martyrs  of  the  Theban  Legion.  Thereupon  the  Count  ordered 
his  vassals  in  this  curia  to  advise  him  by  their  oath  and  homage',  and 
by  their  spokesman,  the  learned  Italian,  Ardizzo  di  Barge,  they  gave 
their  judgment  in  the  usual  medieval  way  before  the  evidence  was  taken. 
If  St  Maurice  could  prove  its  claim,  Amadeus  III,  its  advocate,  should 
compel  restitution  of  the  villae.  The  Canons'  proof  was  complete,  but 
Gerard  d'AUinge  refused  to  submit ;  and  the  Count  dared  not  try  to 
enforce  the  sentence,  for  the  culprit  was  powerful^.  Then  eight  days 
after  the  placitum  on  the  feast  of  Easter,  Gerard  suddenly  died.  His 
domains  came  into  the  Count's  hands  as  suzerain^  for  a  while,  and 
Amadeus  III  took  advantage  of  the  circumstances  to  restore  the  villae 
to  the  rightful  owners.  This  interlude,  however,  did  not  last  long,  for, 
when  Peter  d'AUinge  was  invested  as  advocate,  he  promptly  seized  on 
the  villae.  In  despair  the  Canons  took  down  the  great  Abbey  cross 
and  laid  it  with  groans  and  tears  on  the  floor  of  the  church,  nor  did  the 
action  fail  of  its  effect.  Peter  fell  seriously  ill  at  Conflans.  In  great 
haste  he  restored  the  villae  through  the  Archbishop  of  Tarentaise's 
intervention,  the  Canons  sending  their  prior  post  to  receive  the  surrender. 
They  then  raised  the  cross  from  its  humiliation ;  and  Peter  recovered. 
Yet,  so  untaught  are  men  by  others'  experience,  his  brother,  a  third 
Gerard  d'AUinge,  continued  the  quarrel.  But  he  was  half-hearted,  and 
a  concourse  of  Savoyard  Bishops*  was  sufficient  to  induce  him  to  sur- 
render his  claim ;  thus  concluding  the  dispute  on  the  nth  March,  1 138. 
In  the  foregoing  we  find  Amadeus  III  as  suzerain,  holding  placita 
for  his  vassals,  although  it  is  not  easy  to  say  how  much  he  acts  as 
superior  of  the  monks  and  the  d'AUinge  and  how  much  as  advocate  on 
behalf  of  the  monks,  presiding  in  \\\<t\x placita^.  But  he  also  appears  as 
defendant  in  a  special  placitum  held  at  Conflans  by  Peter  Archbishop  of 

^  "  Amedeus  comes  ex  latere  suo  milites  et  potentes  qui  secum  illis  diebus  ex 
diversis  regionibus  Agaunum  venerant,  et  in  quibus  plurimum  utpote  fidelissitnis  et 
veracibus  viris  confidebat ;  ad  judicandum  misit  eos  qui  per  hominium  et  jusjurandum 
quod  sibi  fecerant  et  per  amititiam  et  fidem  quam  sibi  debebant,  adjuravit,  etc." 

2  "  Cum  comes  Amedeus  eum  cogere  quia  potens  erat  dissimularet." 

'  "In  cujus  manum  Alingensis  potestas  devenerat."  Taken  with  the  phrase 
quoted  p.  299,  n.  5,  this  fact  shows  clearly  that  Amadeus'  suzerainty  of  AUinge  was 
due  in  origin  to  the  lay-abbacy  of  St  Maurice,  possessed  by  the  Count  of  Savoy, 
together  with  the  Countship  of  Chablais.  It  is  not  likely  that  the  vassal  of  a  lay- 
lordship  would  be  "advocatus." 

*  St  Peter  of  Tarentaise,  St  Guarin  of  Sion,  Herbert  of  Aosta,  and  Tairold  of 
Maurienne. 

^  The  curia,  however,  is  clearly  composed  of  vassals  from  all  his  lands,  not  only 
of  vassals  of  St  Maurice.  In  the  same  way  the  sentence  seems  given  more  as  the 
council  which  vassals  owe  their  lord  than  as  the  judgment  of  the  defendant's  peers. 
Cf.  Mayer,  Deut.  u.  Franz.   Verfassungsgeschickte,  11.  58-62. 


The  surrender  of  the  spolia  301 

Tarentaise,  and  the  Bishops  of  Maurienne,  Aosta,  Valence  and  Geneva^ 
Whether  this  most  resembled  a  court  of  arbitration  or  an  exercise  of 
imperial  jurisdiction  is  not  very  clear,  but  perhaps  the  first  is  more 
likely.  The  subject  in  dispute  was  the  possession  of  the  two  curtes  of 
Leuk  and  Naters  in  the  upper  Vallais.  Amadeus  had  already  once  or 
twice  given  them  up  to  the  claimants,  the  Bishops  of  Sion^,  but  he  had 
taken  them  into  his  hands  again,  we  may  suppose  each  time  at  the 
death  of  a  bishop.  Now  St  Guarin,  the  Bishop  of  Sion,  made  his  claim 
again;  and  produced  at  the  placitum  the  Emperor  Henry  IV's  diploma 
and  a  charter  of  the  Count's  ownl  Amadeus  admitted  the  genuineness 
of  the  documents  and  the  justice  of  the  claim,  and  the  villae  were 
adjudged  to  St  Guarin.  A  fresh  charter  was  made  out  to  him,  and  the 
inhabitants  of  Leuk  and  Naters  released  from  their  fealty  to  the  Count ^. 
The  Germanization  of  Naters  was  probably  well  in  progress. 

This  was  not  the  only  concession  that  Amadeus  made  to  the 
Bishops  of  his  dominions.  Already  before  his  first  crusade  he  had 
surrendered  the  feudal  right  of  the  spolia  of  the  Canons  of  Aosta^  Now 
he  was  to  carry  the  same  policy  farther.  One  reason  was  that  he  had 
acquired  a  saint  for  Archbishop  of  Tarentaise.  On  the  death  of  Peter  I 
sometime  after  11 38,  that  see  had  been  given  to  Amadeus'  chaplain 
Israel.  It  was  a  bad  appointment  and  in  quite  a  short  time  Israel  had 
damaged  his  see  in  property  and  morals,  so  we  are  told.  The  scandal 
reached  the  Pope's  ears  and  the  useless  tree  was  removed  by  the 
Apostolic  sickle*.     Abbot  Peter  of  Tamie,  a  personal  friend  of  Count 

1  Car.  Keg.  ccLXXXiii.  {M.D.R.  xxix.  p.  83). 

2  See  above,  p.  281,  for  the  charter  to  Bishop  Guillenc  in  11 16. 

^  This  charter  (different  from  that  to  Bishop  Guillenc)  would  probably  be  made 
out  to  Bishop  Boso.  Amadeus'  brothers  were  then  all  alive,  since  Humbert  and 
William  "  laudant "  the  grant  as  well  as  Raynald.  I  should  guess  the  date  to  be 
c.  1 125,  as  the  other  laudatores  are  Rodolf  of  Faucigny  and  Boso  d'AUinge,  both  of 
whom  attest  Amadeus'  charters  about  that  year  (cf.  Misc.   Valdost.,  B.S.S.S.  xvii. 

P-   136)- 

*  Car.  Reg.  CCLXXii.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  46).  As  to  its  date,  it  is 
directed  to  St  Guarin,  who  became  bishop  in  1138,  and  Peter  d'AUinge,  who  we 
know  succeeded  shortly  before  1 138  (see  above,  p.  300)  is  a  witness.  Now  St  Guarin 
at  the  placitum  of  Conflans  was  unrighted ;  and  Peter  d'AUinge  fell  ill  at  Conflans 
apparently  early  in  1138,  and  his  brother  Gerard  was  pacified  on  11  March  1138  by 
three  of  the  bishops  who  attended  Xht  placita  (for  Humbert  is  clearly  the  late  copyist's 
error  for  Herbert  of  Aosta).     Hence  March  1 138  seems  dale  of  the  transaction. 

'  See  p.  281,  n.  2,  for  document. 

*  Vi.  S.  Petri  Tarantas.  (AA.  SS.  Mai  11.  325  ff.),  1.  4,  "Quod  enim  ille 
(Petrus  I)  correxit  in  moribus,  quod  acquisivit  in  possessionibus,  quod  ecclesiasticis 
addidit  ornamentis,  iste  (Isdrahe!)  corrupit,  distraxit,  dilapidavit  in  brevi.  Propter 
haec  et  his  similia  arbor  inutilis  Apostolica  fake  praecisa."  Isdrahel  is  doubtless  the 
"  Israel  cappellanus  comitis"  of  Car.  Keg.  CCLXXIII.  in  Jan.  1127.  The  decennium 
which  Manriquez,  Ann.  Cisteric,  attributed  to  Isdrahel's  episcopate  must  be  an  error. 


302  Amadeus   Ill's  government  and  death 

Amadeus^  was  then  appointed,  and,  after  the  leave  of  his  order  had 
been  obtained,  accepted  the  post  in  1142^  He  at  once  entered  on  a 
vigorous  series  of  reforms  in  his  diocese.  He  enforced  an  ascetic  life 
on  the  parish  priests ;  he  replaced  the  secular  canons,  mostly  nobles,  of 
his  cathedral  by  regulars ;  he  redeemed  the  tithes  from  the  seigneurs^. 
But  his  influence  over  Amadeus  HI  is  most  shown  by  two  diplomas 
which  the  latter  granted  in  1147  before  starting  on  his  second  crusade. 
In  the  first  of  these*  Amadeus  and  his  brother  Raynald  renounced  the 
spolia  of  the  diocese  of  Tarentaise.  In  the  second ^  he,  his  son  and  his 
brother,  made  a  similar  renunciation  of  the  spolia  of  the  see  of  Aosta. 
Further  it  was  probably  at  the  same  time  that  he  renounced  in  a  lost 
charter  the  spolia  of  the  see  of  Maurienne  as  well".  Thus  only  Belley 
was  left  under  the  old  system.  Now  the  spolia  were  a  profitable  feudal 
right  and  also  a  proof  of  suzerainty.  Thus  when  Amadeus  gave  up  the 
right  of  seizing  on  the  Bishop's  revenues  and  goods  during  a  vacancy, 
no  motive  of  worldly  profit  could  intervene.  In  fact  his  civil  govern- 
ment was  permeated  with  ecclesiastic  influences. 

So  far  we  have  treated  of  the  Count's  vassals  and  his  rights  over 
them ;  but  there  remains  to  consider  the  central  administration  if  one 
may  venture  to  style  it  by  so  pompous  a  name.  The  Count  governed, 
it  would  seem,  through  his  curia.  This  was  his  court  of  vassals  and 
court  for  public  business.  We  hear  of  the  ^^ proceres  curiae  suae"  his 
nobles,  before  whom  he  renounces  Leuk  and  Naters".  His  grant  to  the 
Great  St  Bernard  in  11 24  is  made  in  his  curia^.  And  we  may  infer  that 
the  barons  who  attest  his  charters  were  considered  members  of  this 
court.     It  was   nothing  very  new.     Ardoin  V  and   Peter   I   had  had 

'  See  above,  p.  298,  n.  2. 

^    Vi.  S.  Petri  Tarantas.  loc.  cit, 

"  Vi.  S.  Petri  Tarantas.  I.  6.  Perhaps  Car.  Sup.  xxxiv.  {Gallia  Christiana,  xil. 
380)  which  gives  up  Amadeus  Ill's  tithes  at  Conflans,  etc.  really  dates  from  1145 
when  St  Peter  was  Archbishop  and  the  ist  March  was  a  Thursday.  But  1139, 
Ind.  II.  and  ist  March  =  Luna  xxvii.  go  well  together,  though  it  is  odd  the  day  of 
the  week  should  be  wrong.     Peter  I  would  then  be  Archbishop. 

■*  Car.  Reg.  CCLXXXIV.  (Besson,  p.  342,  ed.  1871).  I  date  by  its  likeness  to 
CCXCV.     It  is  granted  "  rogatu  Petri  Tarant.  archiep." 

*  Car.  Reg.  ccxcv.  (M.H.P.  Chart.  I.  794).  The  spolia  are  described,  "  tam 
domus  episcopalis  quam  etiam  possessionum  ac  reddituum  ejusdem." 

''  Car.  Reg.  dcclxxxvi.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  173). 

^  Car.  Reg.  CCLXXII.  (see  above,  p.  301,  n.  4).  Their  consent  is  also  expressly 
mentioned  in  the  treaty  with  Pinerolo  Abbey  (see  above,  pp.  285-6),  "Actum. ..in 
presencia  silicet  comitis  Amedei  suorumque  procerum  consensu  seu  laude  eorum 
quorum  nomina  subtus  leguntur."  The  consent  of  the  vassals  is  a  normal  procedure 
(Mayer,  Deut.  u.  Frafiz.  Verfassungsgeschichte,  II.  pp.  55-64).  No  doubt  it  is  one 
origin  of  the  later  estates  in  Savoy.     Cf.  the  curia,  p.   300,  n.  5  above. 

^  Misc.  Valdost.,  B.S.S.S.  xvii.  p.  125.     Cf.  p.  298  above. 


The  Count's  curia  and  ministri 


0^0 


"curiae  suae,"  although  no  doubt  presence  in  the  curia  was  by  now  due 
increasingly  to  the  tenure  of  land  by  feudal  homage. 

Yet  at  this  very  time  the  ofificial  element  still  remained  and  a 
non-hereditary  status  in  the  curia  may  be  detected  arising.  The  older 
element  was  the  viscounts  who  held  of  course  by  feudal  tenure.  We 
constantly  find  the  Viscounts  of  Tarentaise,  Aosta,  and  members  of  the 
vice-comital  family  of  Maurienne  in  attendances  as  well  as  a  Viscount 
at  Turin  ^  In  this  latter  document  he  speaks  rather  pompously  of 
"  alico  suo  omine  vicecomite  gastaldione  vel  aliquo  ministro."  Part  of 
this  may  be  mere  archaism ;  but  the  ministri  seem  to  be  in  origin  a 
class  of  non-feudal  officials.  A  Petrus  minister  attests  a  charter  to  Le 
Bourget^ :  and  later  we  find  the  mestrais  {—  ministeriales)  governing  the 
various  castles,  estates  and  territories  of  the  House  of  Savoy^  The 
office  might  become  merely  feudal :  the  Sires  de  Miolans  held  the 
mestralship  of  the  Val  de  Miolans  in  fiefs ^  Hereditary  officials,  how- 
ever, would  not  be  frequent  for  the  comital  demesnes.  Of  such  local 
administrators  we  find  a  praefectus  at  Virieu-le-Grand*  and  praepositi 
at  Billiat  in  Val  Romey'.  They  were  in  fact  local  seneschals  and 
stewards  of  the  Counts'  demesne  :  and  as  a  rule  their  tenure  of  office 
depended  on  the  Counts'  good  pleasured 

While  in  Amadeus  Ill's  Burgundian  lands  feudalism  was  still 
supreme,  the  communal  spirit  was  already  awakened  in  the  Val  di 
Susa  within  the  Alps.  Ever  since  the  days  of  Ardoin  III  that  valley 
must  have  steadily  grown  in  prosperity.  Trade  and  the  pilgrim  traffic 
of  the  Mont  Cenis  and  the  cultivation  favoured  by  the  great  Abbey  of 
St  Giusto  would  all  contribute  to  the  result.  Susa  was  growing  wealthy 
and  strong,  and  perhaps  the  most  significant  event  of  Amadeus'  life  was 
his  grant  of  liberties  to  the  citizens^.     The  main  purpose  of  this  charter 

1  See  e.g.  Car.  Reg.  ccLXii.  ccxLV. 

2  Car.  Keg.  ccLXViii.  {Cartario  S.  Solutore  Torino,  B.S.S.S.  XLiv.  p.  50), 
*' S.   Henrici  vicecomitis. " 

^  Car.  Reg.  CCLXXX.     See  above,  p.  297,  n.  2. 

*  Cf.  below,  pp.  433-4,  for  the  more  special  sense  of  the  word  mestral.  Cf. 
Wurstemberger,  op.  cit.  iii.   pp.   164-5. 

^  Menabrea,  Origines  fioda/es,  p.  397.  So  did  the  de  Gerbaix  that  of  Novalaise 
by  Chambery,  Car.  Reg.  dcliii. 

*  Car.  Reg.  CCLXXXI.  See  above,  p.  295,  n.  4.  Doubtless  he  was  the  same  as 
the  later  caslellanus.     Mayer,  Dent.  u.  Franz.  Verfassungsgeschichte,  n.  p,  362. 

■^  Car.  Reg.  CCLXXXVI.     See  above,  p.  297,  n.  i. 

*  See  the  clause  in  the  liberties  of  Susa  {M.H.P.  Leges  i.  p.  6,  cf.  below)  con- 
cerning the  ministri,  "  De  his  qui  tuum  (i.e.  comitis)  proprium  ministerium  habuerint, 
dum  cum  tua  gracia  habuerint,  teneant." 

"  We  only  know  them  from  Count  Thomas'  charter  of  confirmation  and  amplifi- 
cation in  1 198  (Car.  Reg.  cccxciv.  M.H.P.  Leges  i.  5),  where  they  form  the  first 


304  Amadeus  Ill's  government  and  death 

was  to  fix  the  scale  of  fines  and  other  punishments  for  the  Susians  when 
they  came  within  the  reach  of  the  law.  Violence  and  theft  are  the  chief 
crimes ;  and  highway  robbery  is  specially  dealt  with,  as  we  should 
expect  on  a  great  thoroughfare.  The  usual  commercial  exclusiveness 
of  a  medieval  town  forbade  strangers  to  sell  by  retail  to  Susians \  A 
little  information  on  the  town's  government  leaks  through  the  provisions, 
which  has  a  peculiar  interest,  since  Susa  gives  us  an  instance  of  a  quite 
primitive  form  of  Lombard  town-government  surviving  into  documentary 
times.  The  potestas  seems  to  represent  the  Count  as  governor  and 
judge ^.  Another  minister  is  the  gastald,  who  appears  to  be  steward  of 
the  Count's  estates'*.  The  town,  as  usual  in  Italy,  was  divided  into 
viciniae  (i.e.,  parishes)  from  which  the  commune  usually  sprang,  and  it 
was  the  vicini  who  sat  in  judgment  and  declared  the  law  for  members  of 
their  viciniae^.     But  there  was  an  appeal  to  the  Count's  own  placitum 


part  reaching  from  "  De  capitis"  to  "  Ungario  de  Ruata"  (col.  5-7).  They  conclude 
with  the  words  "  Et  secundum  quod  continet  (sic)  instrumento  Amedei  comitis  et 
marchionis  sic  juratum  fuit  in  refectorio  S.  Marie  ante  episcopum  Maurianensem, 
Henrice  (sic)  vicecomite  tuo  recipiente  sacramento  ab  Amedeo  Mauri  et  Armanno  de 
Porta  et  Ungario  de  Ruata."  The  remainder  of  Thomas'  charter  is  a  brief  description 
of  the  customary  rights  of  the  Susians,  which  was  cast  into  a  more  polished  form  and 
amplified  under  Amadeus  IV  in  1233  (Car.  Reg.  Dxxxviii.  M.H.P.  Leges  i.  9).  Of 
course  there  is  no  guarantee  that  Amadeus  Ill's  charter  has  not  been  rehandled  in 
transmission  (it  certainly  was  so  between  1198  and  1233);  but  there  seems  nothing 
repugnant  to  his  time  in  the  present  text.  The  presence  of  Viscount  Henry  of  Bara- 
tonia  suggests  1131  as  a  probable  date,  when  we  know  he  was  in  Amadeus'  entourage 
(see  above,  p.  286).     Cf.  Cibrario,  Storia  della  monarckia,  I.  246-51. 

^  "  Extranei  inter  inter  (sic)  indigenas  semel  nee  (sic,  lege  vel)  bis  premoniti 
nullomodo  incisive  vendere  presumant ;  quod  si  fecerint,  qui  sic  vendere  pre- 
sumpserint,  publicentetur  (sic)  et  effundantur  et  sine  edito  sint  qui  hoc  fecerint " 
(col.   7).     "Incisive"  clearly  means  by  less  than  the  whole  piece  of  cloth,  etc. 

^  e.g.  col.  6,  "  De  mercato  manufacto  ut  teneatur,  et  qui  fregerit,  potestas  habeat 
V  solidos  et  tenere  faciat  si  clamor  inde  exierit";  and  "  De  probo  si  glutonem 
injuste  percusserit,  Xll.  denarios  glutoni,  potestati  v  solidos  si  clamor  inde  per\'enerit  " 
(col.  5).  (The  gluto  is  of  course  the  old  Italian  "  ghiottone,"  "  a  man  of  bad  repute," 
"a  knave.")     Cf.  also  below,  n.  4. 

On  the  older  meaning  of  the  word  potestas,  as  a  Count's  substitute,  before  Bar- 
barossa's  time,  see  Mayer,  Italienische  Verfassungsgeschichte,  II.  344-6.  Here  at 
Susa  he  ruled  over  the  Count's  demesne  and  exercised  the  Count's  suzerain  rights 
(since  the  Abbey  of  S.  Giusto  was  feudal  lord  of  a  third  of  the  town)  for  a  fraction  of 
a  county.  The  Viscounts  had  obtained  an  independent  position,  and  exercised  or 
claimed  certain  hereditary  privileges  throughout  the  county.  It  was  not  unlike  the 
relative  positions  of  the  Lord  Great  Chamberlain  and  Lord  Chamberlain  of  England. 

3  "  De  incisivis  de  ovibus  vel  pellatis  gastaldis  (sic)  sine  voluntate  burgensium 
nullomodo  se  intromittant." 

This  appears  to  be  an  economic,  more  than  governmental  function. 

■*  col.  7,  "  De  aperto  forifacto  sive  de  terra  sive  honore  sive  de  intollerabili  injuria 


Susa  and  its  charter  305 

and  the  judgement  there  was  finaF.  The  Count  could  make  regulations 
for  some  kinds  of  buying  and  selling;  a  breach  of  his  command  entailed 
loss  of  the  edtdwtr,  and  the  Susians  now  obtained  the  privilege  of 
selling  their  wine  when  and  how  they  liked,  without  the  edictum^.  Thus 
freedom  from  regulation  and  outlawry  were  perilously  akin  in  Savoyard 
law.  There  was  clearly,  too,  some  comital  right  of  purveyance,  for  if  a 
loan  (no  doubt  the  price  of  purchases)  to  him  or  his  servants  had  been 
outstanding  for  more  than  forty  days,  a  Susian  lender  was  not  liable  to 
lend  more  till  he  had  been  repaid ^  The  royal  fodrum  was  a  tax  and 
fixed  at  a  hundred  pounds ^ 

Some  detached  clauses  are  interesting.  The  Count  forbade  his 
Lombard  subjects  to  buy  sheep  or  fleeces  in  his  Burgundian  lands, 
presumably  because  pasturage  and  wool-raising  were  the  staple  industry 
of  the  latter"  and  the  Lombard  middle-man  was  not  to  be  allowed  to 
enter  the  trade.  If  a  Susian  captured  a  man  in  fight,  who  was  either  a 
villager-man-at-arms  or  a  squire,  or  mere  footman  or  archer,  the  prize 
was  all  his ;  but  the  person  of  a  captive  knight  belonged  to  the  Count^. 

inter  vicinos  placitetur;  si  vicini  emendare  non  poterint,  nee  potestas,  ab  injurioso  vii. 
libras  et  dimidiam." 

col.  6,  "Si  vicinus  in  vicinum  insurrexerit  gladio,  si  neminem  percusserit  et  vicini 
emendare  non  poterint  et  clamor  inde  pervenerit,  LX.  solidos. "  Thus  the  potestas 
seems  to  hold  a  court  of  second  instance.     Cf.  next  note. 

'  col.  6,  "  De  his  qui  tuum  proprium  ministerium  habuerint,  dum  cum  tua  gracia 
habuerint,  teneant ;  sin  aliud  intervenerit,  salva  tua  jiistitia  sub  vicinorum  lege  sine 
occasione  redeant."  col.  7,  "  De  tuo  placito,  quod  per  justitiam  tibi  datum  fuerit, 
nullus  alius  nee  alia  postea  placitetur." 

2  See  above,  p.  304,  n.  i,  and  below,  n.  6.  Here  "sine  edicto,"  I  take  it, 
means  outlawed.     In  the  next  note  it  means  unregulated. 

■'  col.  6,  "  De  proprio  vino  tuo  de  quo  bannum  habebas,  super  nos  deinceps  nullum 
editum  teneatur :  quia  sic  nobis  in  perpetuum  remisisti  et  vinum  suum  libere  omnes  de 
Secusia  quandocumque  voluerint,  vendant  sine  edito."  Here  the  editton  almost  equals 
bannum.  Elsewhere  it  is  used  of  a  parish- regulation,  "  De  edicto  cum  concilio 
vicinorum  facto,  qui  fregerit  emendet  illud  et  cum  clamore  et  sine  clamore,"  col.  7. 
See  n.  2,  above. 

■*  col.  6,  "  De  credulitate  quam  tibi  vel  tuis  fecerint,  XL.  dies;  si  tunc  habere  non 
poterint,  nullam  credulitatem  tibi  et  tuis  faciant  quousque  suum,  quid  crediderint, 
habeant."  Of  course  the  Counts  were  notoriously  impecunious,  and  their  right  of 
preemption  on  credit  may  often  have  been  burdensome.  But  Amadeus  IV's  recension 
(col.  10)  makes  the  crediditas  due  from  the  hostalarii;  for  which  they  may  levy  a  tax 
on  sales  and  purchases  by  foreigners  {reva).  Thus  a  right  of  albergaria  seems 
meant. 

*  col.  7,  "  De  foro  regali,  c.  libras."  I  imagine  (see  Cibrario,  St.  delta  Monarchia, 
I.  247)  \.\\2l.\.  fodro  should  be  read,  i.e.  the  royal  albergaria. 

**  col.  7,  "  NuUi  Lombard!  a  Montecenisio  in  ultra  per  terram  meam  nee  eciam 
per  desertum  oves  vel  pellatas  nullomodo  emere  presumant.  Quod  si  fecerint,  oves 
vel  pellatas  publicentur  et  destruantur  et  sine  edito  sint  qui  hoc  fecerint." 

'  col.  6,  "Quicumque  aliquem  in  uerra  acceperit,  rusticum  vel  donsellum,  peditem 

P.  o.  20 


3o6  Amadeus  Ill's  government  and  death 

The  rights  of  succession  and  testamentary  power  of  Susians  were  care- 
fully safeguarded ;  but  the  goods  of  a  stranger,  who  died  intestate,  were 
shared  between  the  Count,  the  host  and  the  parish-church,  as  treasure- 
trove'. 

These  provisions  are  enough  to  show  both  the  growing  wealth  of 
Susa  and  the  unquestioned  power  of  the  Count.  There  are  viciniae,  but 
nothing  like  a  single  developed  commune,  unless  the  phrase  "  concilio 
vicinorum  "  is  to  be  understood  as  the  act  of  some  central  body-.  At 
the  same  time  the  relations  of  Count  and  citizens  are  not  perplexed  with 
feudalism.  Two  ingredients  of  the  town's  prosperity  are  not  mentioned. 
One  was  the  mint  of  Susa,  which,  if  founded  by  Humbert  II,  finally 
ousted  that  of  Aiguebelle  in  Amadeus'  time,  and  supplied  a  large 
district  ^.  The  other  was  the  toll-freedom  of  Susa,  which  we  know  was 
granted  to  Asti,  the  chief  trading  town  for  the  Mont  Cenis  route  ^  and 
which  we  find  still  in  existence  as  a  general  right  c.  i2oo\  Neither 
Counts  nor  townsmen  were  inclined  to  kill  the  goose  that  laid  the 
golden  eggs. 

When  we  compare  Amadeus  Ill's  entourage  with  his  father's,  we 
find  that  his  influence  over  his  vassals,  and  perhaps  the  number  of  the 
latter,  are  clearly  growing.  Nobles  of  Maurienne",  Savoy  proper^, 
Sermorens^  Belley^,  Tarentaise'",  and  Aosta",  appear  in  his  charters  in 
goodly  number.  But  also  we  find  fresh  districts  represented  among 
them.     Thus  from  New-Chablais  there  come  Rudolf  I  de  Faucigny'- 

aut  sagittarium,  et  cuiuscumque  possessionis  fuerit,  et  ipsum  et  que  cum  eo  vel  sine 
capta  fuerint,  habeat  et  sint  sua,  excepta  sola  militis  persona  que  tibi  reddatur." 
Presumably  these  mounted  rustici  are  the  servile  or  semi-servile  men-at-arms.  See 
Mayer,  Deut.  u.  Franz.   Verfasswigsgeschichie,  II.  184-7. 

1  "  Si  fuerint  extranei  et  preoccupati,  sua  sint  sub  tuo  velle,  preter  vestimenta  que 
sunt  hospitis  et  quinta  parte  aliarum  rerum  que  est  ecclesie  baptismalis  et  parrochialis  " 
(cols.  5-6). 

2  See  above,  p.  305,  n.  3. 

^  See  above,  p.  276.  Aiguebelle  money  does  not  seem  to  be  heard  of  after  the 
time  of  St  Hugh  of  Grenoble  (ob.    1132). 

■*  See  above,  p.  219. 

^  In  Count  Thomas'  confirmation  among  the  additions  (see  above,  p.  303,  n.  9), 
"Liberalitas  nostra  est  quousque  ad  Mare  Calabrium  nullum  transitum  vel  usum 
reddere  debemus.  Hac  de  causa  fuit  omnibus  Italicis  datum  ut  nullum  transitum  hue 
veniendo  reddant,  in  redeundo  mediam  partem  transitus." 

^  e.g.,  the  de  la  Chambre  (Car.  Reg.  CCXLV.  (1104),  CCLXXIII.  (1137)). 

7  e.g.  the  de  Toumon  (Car.  Reg.  CCLXXiii.  (1137)) ;  the  de  Chambery  (Car.  Reg. 
ccxcii.  (1147)). 

8  e.g.  the  de  Boczozel  (Car.  Reg.  ccxLV.  (1104),  ccLXXii.  (c.  1138)). 

8  e.g.  the  de  Rossillon  (Car.  Reg.  CCXLV.  (1104),  CCLXXVi.  (c.  1140)). 
"  e.g.  the  de  Brian9on  (Car.  Reg.  CCLVi.  (11 11-22),  Sup.  xxxiv.  (1139)). 
"  e.g.  the  de  Chatillon  (Viscounts)  (Car.  Reg.  CCLXil.  (1125),  ccxcv.  (1147)). 
I'*  Car.  Reg.  cclxiii.  (  =  cclxii.)  (1125). 


Amadeus  Ill's  entourage  307 

and  the  Sires  d'AUinge^;  from  Old-Chablais  the  Sires  de  Blonay^;  from 
the  Vallais  the  Sires  de  Saillon"\  and  from  the  land  in  the  Genevois 
along  the  Upper  Rhone  towards  Geneva,  the  Sires  de  Rumilly^  and 
the  Dean  of  Chezery'.  Even  a  noble  from  Graisivaudan,  Guigues  de 
Dom^ne,  is  at  his  court '^.  Except  the  last,  none  of  these  perhaps  were 
quite  new  vassals ;  but  their  attendance  shows  an  increased  power  over 
them^ 

Perhaps  we  can  detect  among  these  attestors  the  names  of  those 
Amadeus  III  particularly  trusted,  by  means  of  their  frequency,  as  well 
as  by  definite  statements.  Foremost  come  the  great  ecclesiastics  who 
so  much  influenced  him,  St  Hugh  of  Grenoble,  St  Peter  of  Tarentaise 
and  Amadeus  d'Hauterive,  Abbot  of  Hautecombe*  and  later  Bishop 
of  Lausanne.  Then  members  of  the  families  of  Boczozel,  of  Bogis 
(?  Bauges)'  and  of  Ameysin'",  and  the  Italian  Ardizzo  di  Barge"  seem 
much  in  his  company ;  but  except  that  we  are  told  that  Ardizzo  was 
an  able  man  with  a  good  knowledge  of  law,  we  know  nothing  of  them. 

Lastly,  it  may  be  as  well  to  mention  the  places  where  it  is  certain 
Amadeus  resided  a  longer  or  shorter  time.  In  Burgundy  we  find  him 
at  Yenne^^  at  St  Maurice '^  at  Aosta",  at  Tamie^',  at  Chambery^'*,  at 
Conflans^'',  and  at  St  Julien  in  Maurienne^^;   in  Italy,  at   Susa^",  at 

^  Car.  Reg.  ccxLVii.  (1108),  ccLxxii.  (c.  1138). 

-  Car.  Reg.  ccxLvii.  (1108),  CCLXXXiii.  (c.  ll^l,  see  above,  p.  301,  n.  i). 

3  Car.  Reg.  ccLXXii.  {c.  1138,  see  above,  p.  301,  n.  4),  cclxxxviii.  {1143). 

^  Car.  Reg.  ccxlvi.  (c.  tio8),  ccxcii.  (c.  1147). 

^  Car.  Reg,  CCLX.  (c.  112 1-5). 

•>  Car.  Reg.  ccxcii.  (c.  1147).  No  doubt  his  presence  has  somethmg  to  do  with 
the  dowry  of  Countess  Matilda. 

'  I  omit  the  Italian  vassals  here,  as  they  have  already  been  mentioned  on  p.  286. 
Certain  nobles  of  the  town  and  valley  of  Susa  also  appear  in  Amadeus'  Italian 
documents. 

8  Car.  Reg.  CCCXXiv.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  38),  Amadeus  d'Hauterive  says  to 
Humbert  IH  :  "Cum  devoto  servitio  reverentissimus  comes,  pater  vester,  in  suo 
recessu,  mihi  tanquam  intimo  amico  studiose  injunxit,  ut  ad  honorem  dignitatis 
vestrae  et  ad  incolumitatem  terrae  pro  modo  meo  diligenter  evigilarem." 

^  e.g.  Car.  Reg.  ccLVin.  cclxxx.,  Sup.  xxxiv.,  Reg.  cmxlviii.,  and  also  Reg. 
CCLXXii.,  and  Misc.  Valdost.,  B.S.S.S.  xvii.  p.  135,  where  the  name  is  distorted. 

'"  e.g.  Car.  Reg.  CCLXXVI.  cclxxvii.  cclxxx.  cclxxxviii.  ccxciv.  Ameysin  is 
close  to  Yenne. 

"  e.g.  Car.  Reg.  CCLXXV.  CCLXXIX.  ccxciv. 

^■•^  Car.  Reg.  CCXLVI.  (so  Guigue,  Petit  Cartul.  St  Sulpice  en  Bugey,  p.  29,  Gallia 
Christiana,  XV.  reads  Geiievae),  CCLIX.  CCI.X. 

^^  Car.  Reg.  CCXLVII.  M.D.R.  xvill.  355,  Car.  Reg.  CCLXVi.* 

1*  Misc.   Valdost.,  B.S.S.S.  xvil.  135  (Car.  A'^^.  ccxcv.  probably). 

"  See  above,  p.  298,  n.  2. 

'"  Car.  Reg.  cclxxx.  "  Car.  Reg.  CCLXXXlli. 

"*  Car.  Reg.  cclxxxviii. 

^^  Car.  Reg.  ccxLviii.  ccxciv. 

20—2 


3o8  Amadeus  Ill's  government  and  death 

S.  AmbrogioS  at  Turin-,  at  Rivalta^  and  at  Avigliana^  Of  his  alber- 
gariae  we  only  know  those  at  Yenne^  and  at  Turin*';  but  at  Tamie  and 
S.  Ambrogio  at  least  he  would  be  guest  of  a  monastery''.  Perhaps  we 
may  draw  a  deduction  as  to  his  favourite  residences  from  the  monastery 
which  he  founded  at  Hautecombe  and  the  title  he  occasionally  used  of 
Count  of  Savoy®.  Hitherto  the  little  province  seems  not  to  have  been 
customary  as  a  predicate  although  we  really  do  not  know  what  style 
Humbert  Whitehands  preferred.  In  another  generation  or  two  Count 
of  Savoy  was  to  be  the  leading  title  of  the  Humbertines. 

There  was  in  fact  a  considerable  variation  in  the  style  used  by 
Amadeus  HI.  In  his  earlier  and  in  some  later  documents,  he  takes 
the  simple  title  of  Co?nes\  but  his  more  frequent  preference  is  for 
Comes  et  Marchio  like  his  father  ^  For  predicates  we  find  once  the 
singular  Burgutidiae  et  Lombardiae  Comes,  which  must  refer  to  his  dual 
position,  "Count  both  in  Burgundy  and  in  Lombardy"^";  once  Comes 
Tatirinensis  which  I  have  discussed  above"  ;  and  once  Cotnes  Mauria- 
nensis,  "Count  of  Maurienne."  It  was  this  last  predicate  by  which  he 
was  usually  known  to  his  contemporaries^-,  and  doubtless  the  fact  shows 
that  Maurienne  was  considered  the  centre  of  the  Savoyard  dominions 
in  the  twelfth  century.  Only  one  trustworthy  instance  of  a  predicate  to 
Marchio  is  known  for  his  time,  and  that  does  not  occur  in  his  charters  ^^. 
The  form  is  Marchio  Italiae  and  should  mean  "  Marquess  in  the  king- 
dom of  Italy,"  like  Lombardiae  Comes.  He  was  already  docketed  for 
public  identification  as  "of  Maurienne":  and  the  addition  of  Italiae 
would  only  emphasize  the  fact  that  he  claimed  to  be  one  of  the 
Marquesses  of  the  Regnum  Italicum,  once  so  often  called  collectively 
and  severally,  in  allusion  to  their  eminent  position,  Marchiofies 
Italorum^*. 

1  Car.  Reg.  CMXLViii.  -  Car.  Reg.  CCLVI.  ccLXViii.  CCLXXXIX. 

3  Car.  Reg.  CCLXix.  *  Car.  Reg.  ccLXXiii. 

•'  Car.  Reg.  CCLX.  "in  domo  Sibodi  Falsi." 

*  Car.  Reg.  CCLXVIII.  "in  domo  Johannis  Baderii. " 

'  "In  claustro  S.  Ambrogii."     It  belonged  to  S.  Michele  della  Chiusa. 

*  For  the  contemporary  use  of  the  title,  see  p.  292,  n.  5,  and  p.  298,  n.  2.  These 
instances  give  some  (but  not  too  much)  support  to  the  instances  in  Guichenon  (Car. 
Reg.  CCL.  CCLXIV.). 

8  Cf.  above,  pp.  284,  292,  n.  3,  and  297,  n.  i. 

^^  See  above,  p.  286,  n.  2. 

"  See  above,  p.  286. 

^■■^  Cf.  below,  pp.  309,  n.  3,  311,  n.  3,  id.  n.  4,  312,  n.  2,  and  Car.  Reg.  CCLXil., 
Misc.  Valdost.,  B.S.S.S.  xvii.  p.  85. 

^^  See  above,  p.  298,  n.  2.  No  original  diploma  calls  him  Marchio  in  Italia 
(correct  Car.  Reg.  CCLXli.). 

^^  This  conclusion  is  contrary  to  that  of  Prof.  Gabotto  in  Studi  Pinerolesi,  B.S.S.S. 
I.  97-8.     I  can  find  no  passage  which  implies  that  Marchio  in  Italia  was  a  special 


The  Second  Crusade    •  309 

The  last  year  of  Amadeus'  life  is  concerned  with  his  second  crusaded 
The  whole  of  Christendom  had  waked  to  the  need  of  defending  the 
Holy  Land  against  the  reviving  power  of  the  Moslems.  In  1144 
Zengy,  the  Atabeg  of  Mosul,  had  begun  the  reconquest  of  Syria  by  the 
capture  of  Edessa ;  and  his  son  Nur-ed-din  was  still  more  formidable. 
Now  the  foremost  man  in  Europe,  St  Bernard  of  Clairvaux,  took  the 
lead  in  the  agitation  for  a  new  crusade  to  drive  back  the  infidel,  and 
place  the  Christian  kingdom  of  Jerusalem  in  security.  In  Easter  11 46 
Louis  VII  of  France  took  the  cross  at  Vezelay  from  St  Bernard's  hands, 
and  in  a  scene  of  wild  fervour  the  assembled  nobles  followed  his 
example.  At  Christmas  the  German  Conrad  III  did  the  same.  Mean- 
while, presumably  during  one  of  St  Bernard's  provincial  journeys, 
Amadeus  III  had  been  urged  to  join  his  forces  to  his  nephew's.  He 
does  not  seem  to  have  taken  the  cross  anew  without  reluctance,  how- 
ever ;  and  an  appeal  was  necessary  to  the  Pope,  Eugenius  III,  then 
seeking  an  asylum  in  France  from  the  revolutionary  insubordination  of 
his  Romans.  By  the  7th  March  1147,  he  had  reached  Susa  from 
Vercelli^;  and  by  the  8th,  if  not  before,  Amadeus  had  made  up  his 
mind.     Moved  by  the  Pope's  exhortations  he  had  assumed  the  cross^ 

title  of  the  Ardoinids.  Manfred's  mark  of  course  lay  in  Italy  (see  above,  p.  153,  n.  17); 
but  Marchio  Italortcm  or  Marc/nones  Italiae  is  a  description  applied  indifferently  to 
Oddo  I  of  Savoy-Turin  in  1066  (Lampert.  Hersfeld.  ed.  Holder-Egger,  p.  104),  the 
Otbertines  in  1014  (Arnulf.  Mediol.  i.  18,  RI.G.H.  Script,  viii.  11)  and  the  Marquesses 
in  general  in  1025  (Count  Fulk  of  Anjou,  Migne  CXLI.  838).  Later,  "  Ottonis 
Marchionis  de  Italia"  is  used  by  the  twelfth  century  Ann.  Saxo.  {M.G.H.  Script,  vi. 
695)  as  an  emendation  of  Ekkehard's  "Ottonis  cujusdam  Italici"  {M.G.H.  Script,  vi. 
199).  Kence  I  think  that  the  chief  reason  why  the  Savoyards  did  not  take  an  ordinary 
territorial  predicate  (like  Saluzzo,  Ceva,  etc)  was  that  they  already  possessed  one  in 
their  county  of  Maurienne  or  of  Savoy.  They  never  take  the  styles  of  all  their 
possessions  (Aosta,  Belley,  etc.). 

^  For  his  first,  see  above,  p.  281.  That  he  went  twice  is  proved  by  Car.  Reg. 
CCCIV.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  pp.  67  ff.) :  "  Cum  Amedeus  illustris  comes  et 
marchio... ire  jam  secundo  lerosolymam  intenderet  et  cum  rege  Francorum  nobilissimo 
Lodoico,  viz.,  nepote  suo  se  ad  debellandas  nationes  barbaras  prepararet." 

"^  Jaffe,  9009. 

^  This  is  a  reconstruction,  influenced  by  the  similar  conduct  of  Louis  VII  of  France. 
The  relevant  texts  are  as  follows.  Car.  Keg.  ccxciv.  (CipoUa,  Le pin  antiche  carte... 
di  S.  Giusto  di  Susa,  Bull.  Istit.  stor.  ital.  r8,  p.  94) ;  "  Ego... Amedeus  comes,  corde 
conpunctus,  inspiratione  ut  credo  divina,  recordans  attentius  facinorum  meorum,  a 
domno  beatissimo  papa  Eugenio  conmonitus  et  instructus,  acceptaque  ab  eo  penitentia, 
Iherosolimam  ire  ac  sepulcrum  nostri  Redemptoris  visitare  cupiens,  etc."  This  is 
dated  on  8  March  1147,  Eugenius  III  being  present.  Count  CipoUa  considers 
the  document  a  false  original,  and  its  script  to  date  c.  1200.  It  is  difficult  to 
see  what  part  of  the  contents  is  not  genuine.  Cf.  above,  p.  197,  n.  2.  De  glor. 
rege  l.ttdovico  (ed.  Molinier),  p.  159,  "  Eodem  quoque  tempore,  Conradus  imperator 
Aleniannie  ..crucem  accepit,  et  Ferricus,  dux  Saxonie,  nepos  ejus,  postea  imperator, 
Amatus  etiam  comes  Moriane,  avunculus  regis  Ludovici,  in  quorum  comitatu  multi 


3IO  Amadeus  Ill's  government  and  death 

Next  day  Eugenius  had  taken  his  leave  and  was  in  the  Dauphin's  town 
of  Oulx  preparatory  to  crossing  by  the  Mont  Genevre  towards  Lyons ^ 

Amadeus  III  remained  behind  to  raise  the  necessary  funds  for  so 
great  an  enterprise  as  that  of  the  crusade  of  1147.  During  the  Pope's 
presence  in  Susa,  he  had  raised  11,000  Susian  solidi  by  the  grant  of  a 
confirmatory  charter  to  S.  Giusto  di  Susa,  which  included  the  surrender 
to  the  abbey  of  his  comital  income  in  the  lower  Susian  valley".  A 
general  confirmation  to  St  Sulpice  about  this  time  suggests  a  further 
source  of  supply^;  but  we  are  clearly  informed  of  his  deaUngs  with 
St  Maurice*.  Through  all  its  vicissitudes  that  abbey  had  succeeded  in 
retaining  a  golden  tabula  set  with  precious  stones.  The  gold  alone 
was  said  to  be  worth  sixty-six  marks  of  gold.  Now  it  was  given  to  the 
Count  to  be  broken  up,  although  part  of  the  jewels  were  reserved.  In 
return  he  pawned  to  the  Canons  his  comital  dues  in  Val  d'Entremont 
and  Champery,  amounting  to  at  least  fifty  pounds  of  silver  yearly  ^  till 
the  tabula  or  its  value  could  be  restored.  What  a  loss  this  concession 
was,  appears  when  we  remember  that  the  Val  d'Entremont  was  the 
Great  St  Bernard  route. 

fuerunt."  This  suggests  Amadeus'  vow  was  later  than  Conrad's  at  Christmas  H46. 
Amatus  here  is  a  wrong  Latinization  of  Amadeus'  vernacular  name  Ame.  Car.  Reg. 
ccxcn.  (Guigue,  Petit.  Cartul.  de  St  Sulpice  en  Biigey,  p.  2) :  "  Tempore  igitur  illo 
quo  publice  Dei  gratia  per  predicationem  domni  Bemardi  abbatis  Clarevallensis, 
regem  Francorum  cum  innumerabilibus  Christiani  nominis  confessoribus,  ad  suscepti- 
onem  lerosolimitane  peregrinationis  incitavit,  ego  Amedeus,  comes  et  marchio,  eadem 
nimirum  gratia  et  exemplo  vocatus  ad  Dei  militiam  pro  defensione  vivifice  crucis, 
contempto  consulatus  honore,  ejusdem  crucis  insignitus  munimine  convolavi." 

^  Jaffe,  9009. 

'^  Car.  Reg.  ccxciv.  (see  above,  p.  309,  n.  3) :  "  receptum  nostrum  comitale  quod 
accipiebamus  in  Vigonio  et  in  Almisio,  Rubiana,  Capriis,  Gondoviis,  Burgonio  et 
S.  Antonino.  Insuper  quidquid  habere  omnino  videbamur  a  castello  Petra  usque 
ad  pratum  de  Helemosina  et  a  Duria  usque  ad  Lazzerias,  excepta  solummodo  ven- 
ditione."  The  Duria  is  of  course  the  Dora  Riparia;  Castel  Pietro  is  now  a  part  of 
Susa.  The  other  localities  in  the  second  clause  were  doubtless  near.  See  Cipolla, 
op.  cit.  p.  51. 

*  Car.  Reg.  ccxcii.  (see  above,  p.  309,  n.  3). 

•*  There  are  two  documents  recording  the  transaction,  both  dated  11 50.  One 
emanates  from  Amadeus,  Bishop  of  Lausanne,  late  Abbot  of  Hauterive  (Car.  Reg. 
ccxcviii.  ccciv.,  Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  67) ;  the  other  from  Count  Humbert  III 
(Car.  Reg.  cccill.  op.  cit.  p.  64). 

^  See  the  two  accounts:  {a)  Car.  Reg.  ccciv.  "hac  conditione  interposita,  ut 
gatgeriam  habentes  canonici  de  receptuum  ipsius  redditibus  i..  libras  vel  eo  amplius 
annuatim  reciperent,  donee  ipse  vel  ejus  filius  aut  tabulam  reficerent  aut  tabule 
pretium  ecclesie  restaurarent. "  {b)  Car.  Reg.  cccili.  "  receptus  de  Camblario 
(?  Champery  or  Champex)  et  de  Intermontibus  pro  tabula  aurea  valente  LXVi.  marcas 
auri...in  vadimonium  posuit."  To  judge  from  the  arrangements  concerning  the 
Vallee  de  Bagnes,  the  receptus  was  the  Count's  commuted  right  of  albergaria.  See 
below,  p.  431. 


The  Second  Crusade  311 

When  all  his  arrangements  were  concluded,  and  his  boy-son  com- 
mended to  the  care  of  his  old  friend,  Bishop  Amadeus  of  Lausanne, 
Amadeus  set  out,  apparently  in  the  summer  of  1147.  His  numbers 
were  swelled,  not  only  by  south  French  and  Lombard  pilgrims,  such  as 
the  Count  of  Auvergne  and  his  half-brother.  Marquess  William  VI  the 
Old  of  Montferrat,  but  also  by  many  who  left  the  unwieldy  main  army 
of  the  French  at  Worms'.  In  view  of  the  remarkable  splendour  of 
this  ill-fated  second  crusade,  we  may  infer  that  many  of  the  Count's 
principal  vassals  and  relatives  went  with  him,  if  we  do  not  know  their 
names  for  the  most  part^  But  it  should  be  emphasized  that,  whoever 
they  were  who  went,  these  Burgundian  nobles  crusaded  with  their 
French  kindred  in  utter  disregard  of  the  expedition  led  in  the  same 
year  by  their  suzerain  Conrad  III,  King  of  the  Romans. 

It  would  be  outside  the  scope  of  the  present  study  to  dwell  much 
on  the  second  crusade,  in  which  Amadeus'  share  was  not  happy. 
With  William  the  Old  and  the  Count  of  Auvergne,  he  crossed  from 
Brindisi  to  Durazzo^  and  reached  Constantinople  late  in  October  1147, 
when  King  Louis  VII  had  already  crossed  the  Bosphorus.  The  new 
arrivals  could  not  get  across  at  first  and  were  short  of  victuals ;  but  an 
experience  of  their  plundering  expeditions  soon  induced  the  Greeks  to 
transport  them,  and  they  joined  the  main  army.  When  King  Louis 
met  the  King  of  the  Romans  retreating  in  wretched  plight  at  Nicaea, 
Amadeus  and  William  the  Old  and  two  Lorrainers  were  told  off  to 
reinforce  him"*.  No  doubt  this  was  because  they  were  his  liegemen ; 
but,  when  after  Christmas  Conrad  III  returned  to  Constantinople, 
Amadeus  proceeded  with  his  nephew.  The  incident  throws  a  clear 
light  upon  the  then  relations  of  Burgundy  with  the  Empire. 

It  was   unfortunate   for   Amadeus   that   he  continued  the  march. 

1  Odo  de  Deuil,  ii.  (18,  Migne  Cl.xxxv.),  "  Exinde  (Worms)  multi  de  turba  se 
per  Alpes  a  nobis  separaverunt,  quia  omnia  prae  multitudine  carius  emebantur." 
Many  of  these  no  doubt  crossed  the  Great  St  Bernard. 

^  I  cannot  put  much  faith  in  the  list  of  Amadeus'  companions  given  by  Pingone 
and  copied  by  Guichenon  (Car.  Reg.  ccxcvii.,  see  Menabrea,  Les  origines  fiodales, 
p.  504).  The  names  could  be  put  together  from  documents  of  the  time,  and  Pingone 
is  far  from  above  suspicion  as  an  historian. 

•*  Odo  de  Deuil,  iv.  (39,  op.  cit.):  "  Caeterum  dum  rex  venientes  per  Apuliam 
exspectat  inter  Brundusium  et  Dyrrachium  transfretantes,  solemnitas  Beati  Dionysii 
(3  Oct.)  accidit."  id.  iv.  (44) :  "  Fuit  iterum  opus  morarum,  turn  quia  comes  Morian- 
nensis  et  marchisus  de  Monteferrato,  avunculi  regis,  Alvernensis  comes  et  plures  alii 
quos  exspectabamus,  ultra  urbem  (Constantinopolim)  in  conspectu  nostro  tentoria 
fixerant,  turn  quia,  etc." 

■•  Odo  de  Deuil,  v.  (55,  op.  ciL),  "Rex  episcoporum  et  baronum  consilio  suos 
avunculos,  Moriannensem  comitem  et  marchisum  de  Monteferrato,  suosque  cognalos 
Metensem  episcopum  et  fratrem  ejus  comitem  Renaldum  et  quosdam  alios  sibi  (Con- 
rado)  sociavit." 


312  Amadeus  Ill's  government  and  death 

With  Geoffrey  de  Rancogne  he  commanded  the  vanguard  of  the  host. 
They  left  Laodicea  prosperously  in  January  1148  on  their  way  from 
the  Maeander  to  the  coast  at  Attalia,  when  the  daily  harassing  fight 
with  the  Turks  and  the  shortage  of  provisions  began.  At  last,  in 
crossing  a  defile  of  the  Taurus,  the  two  van-commanders  were  ordered 
to  encamp  on  the  ridge  of  the  pass,  and  there  to  receive  their  com- 
panions, but,  seduced  by  the  speed  they  had  made,  they  hurried  on. 
A  crushing  disaster  was  the  consequence.  The  rest  of  the  army  was 
caught  in  the  defile  by  the  enemy ;  the  rear,  with  the  camp-followers, 
was  almost  annihilated ;  and  Louis  himself  could  only  reach  the  distant 
camp  of  the  vanguard  by  a  mixture  of  desperate  courage  and  good 
fortune.  Geoffrey  de  Rancogne  only  escaped  hanging  owing  to  the 
great  rank  and  name  of  his  fellow-culprit \ 

Even  when  they  reached  Attalia — Satalie — the  troubles  of  the 
wretched  host  were  still  thick  upon  them.  Unhorsed,  short  of  pro- 
visions, and  with  a  paucity  of  ships,  they  were  in  the  greatest  straits, 
and,  strange  thing  in  a  crusade,  if  natural  enough,  many  became 
Moslems  to  escape  starvation.  Louis,  with  the  knights  of  name,  set 
sail  in  February  for  Antioch,  leaving  lesser  men  to  get  through  to  Syria 
along  the  coast  if  they  could.  It  was  the  only  thing  to  be  done,  but 
few  of  those  left  ashore  ever  were  to  see  Syria  or  France.  Although  the 
direct  route  to  Antioch  by  sea  was  a  three  days'  sail,  the  French  King 
took  three  weeks  over  it.  It  would  seem  that  he  crossed  first  to 
Cyprus.  There  the  Count  of  Savoy  must  have  been  left  invalided,  for 
he  died,  perhaps  at  Nicosia,  about  the  beginning  of  April  1148'^,  without 
having  been  able  to  fulfil  his  crusader's  vow.  His  misfortunes  had 
been  only  too  true  a  type  of  the  wreck  of  one  of  the  most  splendid 
armaments  ever  sent  forth  by  Europe.  All  through  its  progress  knightly 
courage  and  religious  zeal  had  been  unable  to  rescue  the   crusaders 

1  Odo  de  Deuil,  vi.  (63,  Migne  CLXXXV.):  "In  quo  Gaufridus  de  Rancone 
rancorem  meruit  sempiternum,  quern  ipse  (rex)  cum  suo  avunculo  Morianensi  comite 
miserat  primum."  id.  vii.  (64)  "  Inter  haec  populus  omnis  Gaufredum  judicabat 
dignum  suspendio,  qui  de  diaeta  non  obedierat  precepto  regio,  et  forsitan  ejus  avuncu- 
lum  quem  habebat  in  culpa  socium,  habuit  etiam  de  vindicta  patronum.  Quia  cum 
essent  ambo  rei,  et  esset  parcendum  regis  avunculo  non  debebat  alter  sine  altero  con- 
demnari."  For  the  history  of  the  march,  see  Archer,  History  of  the  Crusades.  Count 
Amadeus'  share  in  the  disaster,  and  the  whole  story  of  it,  have  often  been  glozed 
over,  e.g.  by  Menabrea,  op.  cit.  p.  507. 

^  Sigeberti  Contin.  Praemonstat.  [M.G.H.  Script,  vi.  453),  "  ii48...Amedeus 
comes  Maurianensis  in  Cipro  insula  obit."  The  day  is  given  by  an  ancient 
necrology  as  Kal.  Ap.  (Mallet,  Doc.  Genevois  inedits  pour  la  gMMogie...de  la  Maison 
de  Savoie,  Mem.  Accad.  Scienze  Torino,  Ser.  11.  Vol.  xvi.).  This  is  perhaps  more 
trustworthy  than  the  later  Anniversary  of  Abbondance  (M.H.P.  Script,  iii.  349) 
which  gives  III  Kal.  Ap.  There  is  no  mention  of  Amadeus  III  after  January  1148, 
and  Louis  was  in  Palestine  in  March  1149.     See  Savio,  I primi  conti  ecc.  p.  496. 


Amadeus   Ill's  children  and  character 


0^0 


from  the  consequences  of  their  own  feudal  turbulence,  their  brigandage, 
their  reckless  lack  of  strategy  and  their  utter  ignorance  of  the  lands  and 
peoples  with  whom  they  had  to  deal. 

Amadeus  III  was  at  least  fifty-three  at  the  time  of  his  death.  He 
had  married  twice.  By  his  first  wife  Adelaide,  who  was  still  alive  in 
July  1 1 33,  he  probably  had  a  daughter  Adelaide  or  Alice,  wife  of 
Humbert  HI  of  Beaujeu^  By  his  second  wife  Majes  of  Albon,  he  had 
several  children.  The  eldest  was  probably  his  successor,  Humbert  HI, 
who  already  "laudat"  a  grant  in  January  1137.  We  may  put  his  birth 
in  T135'.  Four  other  daughters  are  known.  The  eldest  would  be 
Matilda,  who  married  King  Affbnso  I  of  Portugal^  Another  was 
Agnes  Countess  of  the  Genevois,  who  was  probably  the  first  wife  of 
William  I,  Count  of  the  Genevois  from  11 78  to  1195.  ^^  so  she  died 
some  time  before  1172^  Further,  two  daughters  were  nuns.  Juliana 
became  Abbess  of  St  Andre-le-haut  at  Vienne  and  died  on  the 
31st  July  1194^  Margaret  is  said  to  have  founded  the  nunnery  of 
Bons  in  Bugey  and  to  have  taken  the  veil  there*.  She  is  last  heard  of 
in   1157^ 

We  are  not  quite  so  badly  off  for  a  description  of  Amadeus  Hi's 
personal  character,  as  we  are  for  those  of  many  of  his  line,  although  the 
evidence  to  hand  does  not  amount  to  much.  If  we  are  to  trust  the 
statements  of  his  charters,  he  had  led  a  riotous  youth*.     Yet  perhaps 

'  See  above,  pp.  294-5.  ^  See  above,  p.  292. 

^  See  above,  p.  292. 

*  She  is  known  from  her  sister's  epitaph  ;  see  next  note.  Savio,  I pritni  conti  ecc. 
pp.  488-95,  shows  on  chronological  grounds  that  William  I  was  probably  her  husband, 
and  gives  reason  for  thinking  that  Humbert  of  the  Genevois  (ob.  c.  122  [)  was  her 
son.  This  view  is  supported  by  a  charter,  dated  1175,  of  the  Abbey  of  Chezery 
(which  I  think  is  still  unpublished).  Here  we  have  "  G.  Comes,  Amedei  comitis 
filius,  laudante  uxore  sua  Beatrice  et  Humberto  filio  suo  "  {Cartul.  de  Chezery  [Bibl. 
de  la  ville  de  Dole,  MS.  137],  p.  i).  If  Humbert  were  Beatrice's  child,  we  should 
expect  "  filius  eorum." 

*  See  her  epitaph  (Savio,  op.  cil.  p.  489),  now  in  the  Sagra  .S.  Michele  della 
Chiusa,  "  Pridie  Kal.  Aug.  obiit  Domna  Juliana  Abbatissa  S.  Andree  que  habebat 
de  proprio  fratris  sui  Umberti  comiti  Sabaudie  et  de  proprio  Agnetis  sororis  sue 
Gebennensis  comitisse  equina  animalia  xxiii.  que  dedit  conventui  ejusdem  ecclesie, 
ut  in  die  obiti  sui  habeat  conventus  singulis  annis  viginti  solidos  ad  refectionem.  MC. 
nonagesimo  iiii."  Cf.  Terrebasse,  Inscriptions... de  Vienne{\.  251),  who  gives  another 
instance  of  the  phrase  "equina  animalia."  Yet  I  cannot  help  guessing  that  the 
vford  Jornalia  lies  hid  in  it,  and  that  the  jornal,  a  measure  of  land,  is  really  intended, 
which  could  yield  an  annual  income. 

6  Car.  Keg.  cccxvni.  dated  1157.     See  Savio.  op.  cit.  p.  487. 

"  To  these  children  we  may  add  "  Willelmus  frater  comitis,"  who  appears  in  1 173 
(Car.  Keg.  cccxlvi.  Gesta  Kegis  Henrici,  Rolls  Series,  I.  37).  He  was  probably  a 
bastard. 

*  Cf.  above,  p.  309,  n.  3.  See  also  Car.  Sup.  xxxiv.,  "pro  solvendis  contagiis 
meorum  peccaminum." 


314  Amadeus   Ill's  government  and  death 

they  are  merely  due  to  religious  feeling.  Throughout  his  maturer  life, 
he  shows  himself  a  devout  furtherer  of  monasticism  and  a  friend  of  holy 
men.  His  intimacy  with  St  Peter  of  Tarentaise  in  the  latter's  monastic 
days  led  him  to  make  that  gift  of  a  vineyard  to  Tamie  in  order  that  the 
abstemious  rigour  of  the  Abbey  might  be  mitigated  by  some  creature- 
comforts  when  he  paid  it  a  visits  If  his  actual  gifts  to  the  Church 
were  small,  this  was  due  to  his  poverty  ;  the  renovation  of  St  Maurice 
proves  he  could  be  very  generous.  For  the  rest  he  was  a  warrior-count, 
who  greatly  revived  the  fame  of  his  house.  Although  his  generalship  is 
rather  depreciated  by  his  doings  in  the  second  crusade,  his  ability  must 
have  been  considerable,  and  his  dominions  long  benefited  by  the 
monasteries  he  founded.  As  to  his  policy,  nothing  is  more  marked 
than  the  fact  of  his  aloofness  from  the  Empire.  His  alliances  and 
connections  were  with  his  Burgundian  and  French  neighbours.  He 
invaded  Piedmont  as  an  independent  claimant,  not  as  an  imperial 
vassal ;  and  this  attitude,  due  originally  to  the  conduct  of  the  latter 
Franconian  Emperors,  was  no  doubt  a  chief  cause  of  the  hostility  of 
Lothar  H  to  him  and  of  Frederick  Barbarossa  to  his  son.  Conrad  HI 
left  things  alone :  but  his  nephew  definitely  opposed  the  re-creation  of 
the  mark  of  Turin.  The  imperial  policy  with  regard  to  Piedmont  in 
the  twelfth  century  was  to  further  its  partition  among  small  city-states 
and  fractional  lordships,  which  if  they  could  not  help  could  not  hinder 
the  Emperors'  movements  or  policy. 

One  outcome  of  Amadeus'  religious  tendencies  remains  to  be 
noticed,  which,  if  in  a  way  trivial,  yet  has  an  interest  and  a  prolonged 
existence  which  is  not  always  granted  to  things  more  essential.  This 
was  his  assumption  and  choice  of  a  coat  of  arms.  On  an  Aostan 
charter  of  his,  dated  in  1137,  the  original  being  still  preserved,  there 
hangs  the  seal  of  the  Count^.  Its  reverse  bears  the  historic  shield  of 
Savoy  and  its  famous  cross.  We  may  infer  that,  as  even  the  fabulous 
Chroniques  tell  in  a  distorted  fashion^  Amadeus  III  first  assumed  it; 
he  was  a  contemporary  of  Geoffrey  Plantagenet  of  Anjou  and  other  of 
the  earliest  bearers  of  coat-armour.  But  the  necessities  of  politics  were 
to  lead  to  the  cross'  supersession  for  a  time,  and  it  is  not  till  the  days  of 
his  namesake,  Amadeus  V,  that  it  became  the  permanent  banner  of  the 
House  of  Savoy ^ 

^  See  above,  p.  298,  n.  2. 

2  Car.  Reg.  CCLXXVii.  {Misc.  ValdosL,  B.S.S.S.  xvii.  p.  87,  where  a  facsimile  is 
given). 

^  M.H.P.  Script.  II.  1 12-15.  Only  they  make  it  the  cross  of  the  Grand  Master 
of  Rhodes,  bringing  in  also  a  later  Amadeus. 

^  See  Pivano  in  Misc.  Valdost.,  B.S.S.S.  xvil.  79-81.  Count  Gerbaix  de  Sonnaz, 
VAquila  e  la  Croce  di  Savoia  ecc.  pointed  out  the  origin  of  the  Cross  of  Savoy  in 


Result  of  the  two  reigns  315 

If  we  look  for  some  permanent  result  among  the  many  scattered 
doings  of  Amadeus  III  and  his  father  Humbert  II,  it  must  be  found  in 
the  fact  that  the  later  medieval  state  of  Savoy  has  its  first  clear 
beginnings  with  them.  With  Adelaide  of  Turin  and  Humbert  White- 
hands,  our  attention  is  still  absorbed  by  the  fast-decaying  institutions 
of  the  Carolingian  era.  Whitehands  rules  various  countships  in  the 
vanishing  kingdom  of  Burgundy ;  Adelaide  is  the  heiress  of  one  of 
the  doomed  Italian  marks.  But  Amadeus  possesses  a  territory  which 
hardly  forms  a  part  of  any  larger  unit ;  the  connection  with  the  Empire 
is  slender,  and  wholly  expressed  by  feudal  vassalage,  and,  if  his  own 
dominions  are  incoherent,  the  Count's  curia  forms  a  link  to  unite  them. 
Feudalism  by  now  has  won  its  uttermost  victory.  However  feudal  and 
feudalizing  Amadeus  may  be,  the  tide  has  turned  in  his  day,  and  the 
public  authority  is  using  his  feudal  armour  to  protect  and  express  his 
supremacy.  He  has  placed  his  blazon  on  the  shield.  And  in  spite  of 
the  darkness  that  hangs  over  the  Burgundian  policy  of  the  Counts  we 
know  enough  to  gather  that  it  is  of  the  same  type  as  that  of  which  they 
followed  in  the  thirteenth  century.  The  rivalry  with  the  Dauphine  and 
the  Genevois,  the  ceaseless  efforts  to  extend  their  dominion  over  the 
lesser  lords  to  west  and  north,  and  the  attraction  towards  the  French 
group  of  states  which  owned  the  Capetians  for  their  overlords,  had 
already  begun. 

Amadeus  Ill's  first  crusade,  which  he  places  in  1 123-6.  But  he  saves  the  eagle, 
borne  by  Count  Thomas  I  c.  1200,  for  the  earliest  bearing  of  the  House  by  assigning 
it  to  the  Counts  preceding  Amadeus  III.  There  is  no  evidence  for  this  last  view,  and 
it  is  improbable  ;  since  armorial  bearings  were  only  being  assumed  c.  1100-50.  They 
only  became  general  in  the  next  hundred  years.  See  Woodward,  Heraldry,  British 
and  Foreigtt,  New  ed.  Chap.  III.  esp.  pp.  44-51. 


CHAPTER     IV 

COUNT   HUMBERT    III 

Section  I.     Humbert  Ill's  early  rule  (1148-68). 

Hitherto  we  have  had  to  deal  with  a  series  of  energetic  princes, 
who  in  ill  or  bad  fortune  were  still  the  most  important  factors  in  the 
history  of  their  lands.  But  with  Humbert  IH  there  comes  a  change. 
The  times  are  bustling  enough.  World-famous  events  were  taking  place 
round  him.  He  had  to  face  a  new  and  dangerous  development  of 
imperial  policy.  But  in  the  midst  of  this  stir  the  Count  sits  a  quiet 
and  stolid  figure.  He  has  a  trick  of  fading  away  in  times  of  excitement, 
which  is  provoking  to  a  narrator.  In  despair  the  Chrontques  of  his 
House  decided  to  make  him  the  Saint  of  the  family ;  they  attributed  to 
him  the  foundation  of  Hautecombe,  Le  Bourget  and  Aulphs,  in  order 
to  swell  his  annals,  and  dwell  lingeringly  on  the  popular  pressure  by 
which  the  would-be  monk  was  induced  to  marry  three  times,  and  on  his 
return,  each  time  he  became  a  widower,  to  religious  seclusion'.  It  was 
Padre  Savio^  who  showed  first  what  a  trifling  foundation  in  fact  there 
was  for  this  monastic  character  of  Humbert  III  ;  and  his  views  have 
been  accepted  by  Professor  Gabotto^  and  Herr  Hellmann*.  Padre 
Savio,  however,  has  included  in  his  thesis  the  proposition  that  Humbert 
was  really  an  active,  adventurous  warrior ;  and  it  is  here  that  I  have  to 
desert  his  guidance.  It  is  true  that,  aided  by  the  defensible  character 
of  his  dominions  and  the  loyalty  of  his  people,  Humbert  after  all 
weathered  the  storms  of  forty  years;  we  find  Savoy  at  the  end  of  his 
rule  much  where  it  was  at  the  beginning ;  but  beyond  a  kind  of  patient, 

1  M.H.P.  Script.  II.  120-30. 

^  I pritni  conti  di  Savoia,  pp.  4Q7-537. 

•*  UAbazia  e  il  Comune  di  Pinerolo  ecc,  B.S.S.S.  I.  pp.  122-3. 

*  Die  Grafen  v.  Savoyen  u.  das  Reich,  pp.  42-3. 


The  minority  317 

passive  inflexibility,  it  is  difficult  to  detect  any  kind  of  talent  in  the 
Count,  and  the  few  personal  hints  we  have  of  him  taken  altogether 
make  it  likely  that  he  was  a  poor  creature.  So  much  premised,  I  may 
proceed,  but  it  seemed  best  to  mention  that  what  has  been  described 
as  feebleness  by  some,  to  others  has  worn  the  guise  of  vigour. 

When  the  news  of  his  father's  death  reached  Humbert  III,  probably 
about  June  1148,  he  was  about  fifteen  years  old  and  still  under  age. 
It  was  therefore  necessary  to  elect  a  Tutor  for  him.  Seemingly  his 
mother  was  dead.  At  any  rate  nothing  is  heard  of  her.  A  council  was 
held  of  his  chief  vassals  to  consider  the  question.  The  experience  of 
Amadeus  Ill's  minority'  and  perhaps  the  doubtful  character  of  Hum- 
bert's surviving  uncle,  Raynald,  made  them  reject  the  notion  of  electing 
a  neighbour,  such  as  the  Duke  of  Zahringen,  nominal  suzerain  of  the 
Count,  or  other  laymen.  A  better  candidate  was  Amadeus,  Bishop  of 
Lausanne  and  late  Abbot  of  Hautecombe,  a  man  of  high  character,  a 
feudal  potentate  and  an  old  friend  of  Amadeus  IIP.  The  latter  had 
begged  him  to  counsel  his  young  son,  and  after  some  pressure  the  good 
Bishop  took  up  the  task  of  regency^  It  seems  to  have  lasted  till  early 
in  1 1 50,  as  we  find  Humbert,  acting  on  his  own  responsibility^,  if  also 
on  Bishop  Amadeus'  advice ^  in  that  year. 

Humbert's  disasters  began  early,  even  during  the  regency.     By  the 

'  See  above,  pp.  278,  and  283-4. 

^  See  above,  p.  307.  He  also  stood  well  with  King  Conrad  III.  See 
Hellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  43. 

■^  Car.  Reg.  ccxcviii.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  67),  "Cum  predictus  Hum- 
bertus,  niorte  sui  patris  audita,  adhuc  tenerioris  aetatis,  ferre  aut  implere  comitatus 
negotia  non  valeret,  inito  consilio  cum  suis,  nos  (Amadeum  episcopum)  mandavit; 
quid  vellent  aperuit;  ut  comitem  et  ipsius  terram  tueremur,  obnixius  deprecati  sunt. 
Verebantur  etiam  quia  si  duci  vel  comiti  seu  saeculari  cuilibet  potestati  tuitionem 
illam  committerent,  forsitan  non  fidelis  tutor,  sed  potius  improbus  et  avarus  exauctor, 
propriis  utilitatibus  consulens  quibusque  melioribus  terrae  sublatis  pupilli  hereditatem 
pauperem  et  inopem  quandoque  relicturus,  interim  spoliaret.  Sane  nos,  etsi  nostri 
propositi  non  fuisset,  crebri  et  instanti  deprecatione  flexi,  et  quorundam  venerabilium 
et  religiosiorum  virorum  persuasione  compulsi,  et  quam  in  Umbertum  comitem  et 
patrem  ejus  semper  habuimus  nimia  caritate  devicti,  tuitionis  suscepimus  curam." 
The  allusion  to  the  Duke  of  Zahringen  has  not  previously  been  noticed.  There 
was  no  other  Duke  in  Burgundy  or  North  Italy.  Savio,  op.  cit.  pp.  515-9  tries 
to  show  Humbert  III  was  about  twenty-three  years  old  at  his  accession  ;  but  he 
omitted  to  notice  that  Amadeus  III  could  not  well  marry  Matilda  till   1134. 

■*  Car.  Reg.  ccciii.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  64)  dated  1150,  "  Postquam  mei 
juris  et  potestatis  fui,  cartam  super  hoc  fieri,  ne  oblivione  deleretur,  volui  et  eam  proprio 
sigillo  signare...precepi." 

*  To  the  same  epoch  I  refer  Car.  Reg.  cccxxiv.  (Guichenon,  Pretives,  p.  38), 
containing  Bishop  Amadeus'  advice :  and  the  dated  documents  of  1 1 50  (Car.  Reg. 
cccill.  ccciv.)  recording  the  settlement.  Humbert  would  then  be  about  fourteen  or 
fifteen  years  of  age. 


3i8  Humbert  Ill's  early  rule  (1148-68) 

beginning  of  July  11 49,  war  was  already  customary  between  him  and 
the  citizens  of  Turing  If  then  as  urged  above",  Amadeus  III  had 
recovered  Turin  in  1138,  the  city  doubtless  revolted  at  latest  on  the 
news  of  his  death.  A  considerable  shrinkage  of  the  Count's  power 
must  have  followed,  Rivalta  coming  under  Turinese  dominion.  An 
alliance,  too,  was  formed  between  Turin,  Asti  and  Vercelli. 

There  were  other  difficulties  too.  Raynald,  the  ex-Provost  of 
St  Maurice,  was  appropriating  his  former  lands,  and  had  to  be  repressed. 
It  was  the  Val  d'Entremont  he  specially  seized  on  it  seems*,  but  he 
was  soon  turned  out.  We  find  Humbert  coming  to  St  Maurice  in 
1150^  together  with  the  Bishops  of  Lausanne  and  Sion.  A  settlement 
was  then  arrived  at  by  Bishop  Amadeus'  advice.  There  was  an  obvious 
disadvantage  in  pledging  dues  on  the  highway  of  St  Bernard,  and  the 
pledged  receptus  were  given  back  to  the  Count,  who  on  his  side  agreed 
to  pay  the  Abbey  100  marks  of  silver  and  2  of  gold  in  four  yearly  in- 
stalments, and  to  cede  also  his  receptus  in  the  Val  de  Bagnes  as  a  final 
acquittance  of  the  debt\ 

While  I  am  about  the  Count's  domestic  troubles,  his  first  two 
marriages  may  be  mentioned.  By  January  1152^  he  was  married  to  a 
certain  Faidiva,  who  was  very  likely  a  daughter  of  Alphonse  Jourdain 
and  Faidiva  of  Toulouse  ^     She  appears  to  have  died  childless,  and  his 

'  Car.  Reg.  ccxcix.  {Carte  del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  III.  ^,  p.  196).  By  this  treaty 
Ribaldo  di  Rivalta  l^ecomes  a  vassal  of  the  city  of  Turin.  He  reserves  his  fealty  to 
the  Emperor,  the  citizens  their  treaties  with  their  Bishop  (made  in  Rivoli),  the 
Astigians  and  Vercellese.  During  war  he  is  to  reside  in  Turin,  "  excepto  per  guerram 
comitis...Praeterea  dederunt  ei  in  clusa  Taurinensi  si  haberent  werram  cum  comite 
tantum  quantum  Gualfredus  ibi  habet  ex  quo  werra  incepta  foret,  donee  pace  per- 
frueretur."     Of  course  Rivalta  was  most  exposed  to  a  Savoyard  attack. 

-  See  pp.  289-90. 

^  Car.  Reg.  cccxxiv.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  38),  "caveatis  ne  domnus 
Raynaldus  ecclesiam  S.  Mauricii  laedat.  Violenter  enim  eam  invadit,  auferendo 
praeposituram  quam  absolute  fide  interposita  dimiserat  coram  comite  et  archiepiscopo 
Tarentasiensi  ac  plerisque  aliis,  minis  etiam  et  calumniis  repetit  terram  nostri  juris, 
quam  sub  nomine  pignoris  dedit  ecclesiae  pater  vester  pro  tabula  aurea  quam  leroso- 
limam  deportat.  Haec  itaque  repetitio  fit  contra  securitatem  quam  dedit  comes  et 
contra  profectum  (Ppreceptum)  vestrum."  The  whole  tenor  of  the  document  shows  it 
to  be  written  before  the  news  of  Amadeus  Ill's  death  was  to  hand. 

''  Car.  Reg.  ccciii.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  64),  "Cum  post  mortem  patris 
mei  de  negotiis  meis  tractaturus  Agaunum  venissem."  Car.  Reg.  ccciv.  [id.  p.  67), 
"  Agaunum  devenimus  (i.e.  Amadeus).     Affiiit  et  Lodoicus...Sedun.  episcopus,  etc." 

■^  See  the  two  accounts  quoted  in  preceding  note,  and  cf.  for  the  transaction  below, 
p.  538.     "Consilii  nostri  fuit,"  says  Amadeus  of  Lausanne  in  ccciv. 

«  Car.  Reg.  cccviii.  {Carte...d'Oulx,  B.S.S.S.  XLV.  p.  134).  The  date  is  1151 
ab  incarnatione,  which  should  be  1152  ;  the  indiction  xiii.  suits  only  1150. 

'  The  only  evidence  is  the  similarity  of  name,  but  the  age  of  her  presumed  parents 
is  suitable.     See  Savio,  I primi  conti,  pp.  520-1. 


Barbarossa's  Burgundian  policy  319 

next  bride  was  Gertrude,  daughter  of  Thierry  Count  of  Flanders  ^ 
What  the  cause  of  disagreement  with  the  new  Countess  was,  has  not 
transpired ;  but  Humbert  ended  by  imprisoning  her.  From  this  cap- 
tivity she  was  rescued  by  a  daring  member  of  her  brother.  Count 
PhiHp's,  court^,  and  a  divorce  from  Humbert  was  obtained.  By  1168 
she  was  married  again,  this  time  to  a  certain  Hugh  d'Oisy,  only  to 
be  again  divorced.  She  then  became  a  nun  at  Messines  before  1177, 
and  so  vanished  from  history  I  No  child  of  Humbert's  by  her  is 
recorded. 

While  Humbert's  own  history  has  this  meaningless  disconnected 
character,  a  well-defined  series  of  events  was  affecting  Burgundy  as  a 
whole,  and  even  the  torpid  Count  was  drawn  within  their  influence. 
Conrad  HI  of  Hohenstaufen  had  died  in  February  1152  and  his 
nephew,  Frederick  I  Barbarossa,  was  elected  King  of  the  Romans  in 
his  stead.  The  new  monarch,  whose  fame  has  overshadowed  that  of 
all  his  predecessors  and  successors,  save  Charlemagne,  was  resolved  to 
restore  the  Empire  to  its  whilom  glory  as  it  existed  before  the  struggle 
with  the  Papacy.  The  task  of  reasserting  his  authority  in  Germany, 
where  the  consciousness  of  a  national  kingdom  was  still  strong,  was 
comparatively  easy.  Even  Conrad  HI  had  ruled  there.  But  the  Empire 
was  an  absurdity  without  the  Kingdom  of  Italy,  and  owed  something  of 
its  universal  character  to  that  of  Burgundy.  The  new  King's  ambition, 
therefore,  was  to  recover  the  actual  government  of  Italy  and  to  create  a 
real  central  power  in  Burgundy.  The  latter  aim,  when  accomplished, 
would  serve  first  as  an  instrument  to  attain  the  former  and  then  as  a 
guarantee  for  it.  In  short,  the  policy  of  Conrad  the  Salic  was  to  be 
revived. 

The  conditions,  however,  for  the  Burgundian  enterprise  were  less 
favourable  at  first,  than  those  in  Conrad  II's  time.  A  century  of  prac- 
tical independence,  outside  the  limits  of  the  Jura  and  Alps,  had  left 
the  great  local  seigneurs  free  to  build  up  permanent  petty  feudal  states. 

^  Cf.  Savio,  op.  cit.  pp.  521-5.  Car.  Reg,  cccxxxill.  Geneal.  Comit.  Fland. 
(M.G.H.  Script.  IX.  327),  "  Filiarum  quoque  (Theodorici)  Gertradis  primogenita 
nupsit  primo  comiti  de  Moriana ;  a  quo  separata  nupsit  iterum  Hugoni  de  Oisi ;  ab 
hoc  quoque  sejuncta  Mencinis  sanctimonialis  est  effecta." 

-  Anon.  Laudunens.  {M.G.H.  Script,  xxvi.  448),  "Hie  (Robert  d'Arie,  Bishop- 
elect  of  Cambrai)...amorem  comitis  Philipi  Flandriarum  eo  fuerat  adeptus,  quod 
sororem  comitis  de  custodia  comitis  de  Savoia,  mariti  sui,  sua  industria  eripuit  et  earn 
comiti  Flandriarum,  fratri  suo,  restituit."  In  spite  of  the  legendary  character  of  the 
Anon.  Laudun.  this  tale  seems  to  me  a  genuine  piece  of  scandal.  How  should  it 
grow  from  nothing?  And  there  are  no  graphic  folk-tale  details.  The  tale  has  escaped 
the  notice  of  the  courtly  historians  of  Savoy. 

'  For  the  dates,  see  Savio,  op.  cit.  pp.  523-4,  who  cites  as  authorities,  Le  Glay, 
Glossaire  topographique  de  r ancien  Cainbr<lsis,  p.  61,  Duchesne,  Hisloire  de  Coucy,  and 
Auberti  Miraei  (ed.  Foppens)  Opera  diplom.  et  historical  in.  p.  54, 


320  Humbert   Ill's  early  rule  (1148-68) 

Such  were  the  Franche  Comte,  Savoy,  the  Dauphine  and  Provence. 
Now  all  these  Counts  were  drawn  by  language,  sympathy  and  inclination 
into  the  circle  of  French  civilization  of  north  or  south.  In  practice  the 
Empire  had  disintegrated  in  that  quarter  and  the  freed  fragments  were 
losing  all  connection  with  the  main  body.  Such,  for  Savoy,  had  been 
the  moral  of  what  in  this  connection  we  may  call  the  reign  of  Ama- 
deus  III.  The  Emperor  Lothar  II  had  not  been  blind  to  the  course 
of  events  nor  uninventive  of  a  remedy.  His  scheme  had  been  the 
restoration  of  the  Rectorate  of  Burgundy,  once  held  by  Rudolf  of 
Rheinfelden.  Thus  something  like  a  German  tribal  Dukedom  was  to 
be  established,  with  a  wider  sphere,  but  less  actual  authority.  What 
the  Emperors  could  not  do  for  themselves  ambitious  viceroys  were  to 
do  for  them.  Nor  were  the  new  Rectors  or  Dukes  of  Burgundy,  the 
Dukes  of  Zahringen,  quite  unprovided  for  the  task  set  before  them. 
With  wide  lands  in  the  Duchy  of  Swabia  they  combined  very  consider- 
able possessions  in  north-west  Burgundy,  both  in  the  German  and 
Romand  portions.  They  seemed  and  were  well-fitted  to  form  a  link, 
of  German  metal  and  Romance  alloy,  for  the  dissolving  kingdom. 
Lothar's  opportunity  had  come  when  the  elder  Anscarid  Hne  of  Franche 
Comte  became  extinct  by  the  death  of  William  the  Child  in  1127.  He 
promptly  conferred  the  dead  man's  fiefs  together  with  the  Rectorate 
from  Basel  to  the  Isere  on  Duke  Conrad  of  Zahringen,  a  connection  of 
the  deceased.  But  there  were  lions  in  the  path.  Some  nobles,  like 
Amadeus  III,  seem  to  have  been  content  with  merely  ignoring  their 
new  suzerain ;  but  others,  like  Amadeus  I  of  the  Genevois,  whose  in- 
dependence was  more  endangered,  were  actively  hostile,  while  the  next 
heir  to  William  the  Child,  the  Anscarid  Raynald  III,  took  possession 
of  Franche  Comte.  A  long  war  followed  which  seems  to  have  come  to 
a  conclusion  in  the  early  years  of  King  Conrad  III.  Raynald  III  kept 
Franche  Comte  west  of  the  Jura.  Duke  Conrad  acquired  the  Anscarid 
demesnes  within  the  Jura,  and  established  a  real  ducal  authority  over 
the  lay  seigneurs,  both  German  and  Romance,  between  the  Jura,  the 
Lake  of  Geneva  and  the  Swabian  frontier.  He  probably  continued  to 
claim  the  same  superior  authority  over  the  other  lands  contained  in 
Lothar's  grant,  but  it  was  only  a  claim  \ 

It  was  the  policy  of  Lothar  II  that  King  Frederick  decided  at  first 
to  take  up  and  expand.  Before  June  1152  he  had  come  to  an  arrange- 
ment with  Duke  Berthold  IV  of  Zahringen.  The  grant  of  the  Recto- 
rate was  renewed  and  extended  over  all  Burgundy.  Berthold's  dispute 
with  the  Count  of  Franche  Comte — now  William  IV,  who  had  thrust 

^  See  for  the  foundation  of  the  Rectorate,  Fournier,  op.  cit.  pp.  1-5  and  11-14, 
and  cf.  Gingins,  Le  Rectorat  de  Bourgogne  {M.D.R.I.),  and  Kallmann,  op.  cit. 
pp.  81-7.     Cf.  above,  p.  317  and  n.  3,  for  Duke  Conrad's  claims  in  1148. 


Barbarossa's  hostility  to   Humbert   III  321 

aside  his  niece  Beatrice,  Raynald  Ill's  daughter — was  to  be  legally 
decided  in  a  Diet.  A  joint  expedition  of  King  and  Duke  was  to  re- 
establish the  imperial  and  ducal  authority.  The  Bishops  who  were 
immediate  vassals  of  the  Empire  were  to  remain  so,  but  such  as  held 
from  local  seigneurs  were  now  to  be  invested  by  the  Duke.  Berthold  IV 
was  to  furnish  a  large  contingent  for  the  future  Italian  campaign  \ 

In  February  1152,  the  two  allies,  King  and  Duke,  marched  together 
to  Besangon.  They  were  not  in  great  force,  and  could  not  do  very 
much.  To  all  appearance  Humbert  III  and  the  other  princes  simply 
disregarded  the  attempted  transfer  of  the  rights  of  investiture  to 
Berthold.  But  distinct  progress  was  made.  An  arrangement  must 
have  been  come  to  with  William  IV  of  Franche  Comte,  for  he  appears 
in  the  Emperor's  suite,  of  course  remaining  in  possession  of  his  county. 
In  June  1153  there  appeared  at  a  Diet  of  Worms  Amadeus  I  of  the 
Genevois  and  Guigues  de  Domene  and  Peter  de  Vinet.  The  last  two 
were  from  Dauphine  and  doubtless  brought  the  Dauphin's  submission, 
but  Guigues  de  Domene  had  been  in  relations  with  Amadeus  III^,  and 
perhaps  also  represented  Humbert  III.  At  any  rate  Bishop  Amadeus 
of  Lausanne  was  with  the  King,  both  at  Besangon  in  1 153  and  at  Speyer 
in  II55". 

In  spite  of  these  appearances,  it  may  have  been  now  that  Hum- 
bert III  acquired  Barbarossa  for  a  lasting  and  coldly  contemptuous 
enemy.  The  reason  defies  inquiry.  Was  it  that  Humbert  refused  to 
submit  to  the  project  of  the  Rectorate,  and  adhered  obstinately  to  a 
quasi-independent  attitude  ?  Was  it  his  claims  on  Piedmont,  which 
the  king  was  resolved,  like  all  the  Emperors  since  Henry  IV,  to  bar  ? 
Was  it  the  weak  nature  of  the  Count  himself,  that  invited  inroads  on 
his  inherited,  but  perhaps  originally  usurped,  rights  ?  Or  was  it  again 
his  refusal  to  aid  the  imperial  cause  in  Italy,  in  this,  too,  acting  like 
Amadeus  III?  I  am  inclined  to  accept  all  these  reasons  as  bearing 
part  in  Barbarossa's  decision.  In  general,  one  may  safely  say  that  the 
Count  of  Savoy  could  not  bring  himself  to  give  up  a  century  of  inde- 
pendence, and  did  not  see  that  it  was  well  to  side  with  the  Hohen- 
staufen.     His  son  Thomas  learnt  and  applied  the  lesson. 

^  P'ournier,  op.  cit.  pp.  16-17,  M.G.H.  Const,  i.  p.  £99,  "  Domnus  rex  dabit... 
duci  terram  Burgundiae  et  Provinciae...Post  discessum  regis  dux  utrasque  terras  in 
potestate  et  ordinatione  sua  retinebit,  preter  archiepischopatus  et  epischopatus,  qui 
specialiter  ad  nianum  domni  regis  pertinent.  Si  quos  autem  episcopos  comes  Wille- 
helmus  (IV)  vel  alii  principes  ejusdem  terrae  investierunt,  eosdem  dux  investiat." 
Savoy,  Dauphine,  Provence,  and  Franche  Comte,  all  contained  dependent 
bishoprics. 

'^  See  above,  p.  307. 

^  Fournier,  op.  cit.  pp.  17-19;  cf.  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  pp.  4^-4.  See  also  Stunipf, 
3661,  3662,  3663,  3674,  3675,  3680,  36S6. 

P.  O.  21 


32  2  Humbert  Ill's  early  rule  (1148-68) 

In  October  1154  Frederick  entered  Italy  by  the  Brenner,  with  a 
small  army,  to  receive  the  Imperial  crown.  His  aims  went  much  farther 
than  mere  ceremony;  he  wished  to  restore  a  central  government,  which 
had  practically  been  in  abeyance  since  Lothar  II's  death.  The  greater 
part  of  Italy  was  now  parcelled  out  among  the  various  cities,  which 
were  in  fact  independent.  Their  government  was  in  general  a  republic 
of  the  privileged  classes,  nobles  and  traders,  known  as  the  Commune, 
and  divided  internally  into  clans  {consorzerie)  of  the  nobles,  and  gilds 
of  the  traders,  which  were  by  no  means  mutually  exclusive  sections. 
The  Bishops,  who  had  usually  been  their  rulers  in  the  eleventh  century, 
were  now  as  a  rule  obliged  to  be  content  with  a  friendly  reverence,  and 
a  subordinate,  if  privileged,  alliance,  or  else  to  carry  on  a  perpetual  and 
losing  feud  with  their  cities.  A  number  of  the  more  powerful  country- 
nobles,  especially  in  Piedmont,  succeeded  in  maintaining  piecemeal 
independence  in  their  demesnes,  the  remnant  often  of  great  official 
dominions,  marks  and  counties.  The  most  important  of  these  sur- 
vivors in  west  Lombardy  were  the  Aleramid  Marquesses  of  Montferrat 
and  Saluzzo  and  the  Count  of  Savoy.  Finally,  this  wealthy  congeries 
of  small  states  was  in  constant  turmoil.  City  warred  with  city  for  trade 
and  dominion  ;  and  all  cities  attacked  their  natural  enemies,  the  inde- 
pendent country-nobles,  while  the  Bishops  might  be  allied  with  either 
side. 

Now  Barbarossa  was  determined  to  restore  peace  and  order  and  the 
share  of  the  Empire  in  the  government  of  Italy.  Therefore  he  was 
resolved  to  enforce  obedience  to  his  decisions  on  the  quarrels  which  the 
losing  sides  in  the  inter-city  feuds  eagerly  referred  to  him.  He  was 
equally  anxious  to  maintain  a  local  authority  amenable  to  his  orders ; 
and  especially  to  prevent  the  formation  of  too  powerful  states,  which 
could  resist  them.  Here  of  course  our  scope  is  hmited  to  his  action  in 
Piedmont,  which,  however  it  varied  in  particular  cases,  was  devoted  to 
these  constant  ends. 

In  January  1155  he  arrived  at  Turin  from  Vercelli.  The  then 
Bishop  of  Turin,  Charles,  was  on  good  terms  with  the  Commune,  and 
both  were  in  the  King's  grace.  No  doubt  Frederick  was  already  their 
supporter  against  any  claims  of  the  Count  of  Savoy.  While  the  latter 
remained  in  his  mountain  recesses,  his  rival  the  Dauphin  Guigues  V 
came  loyally  to  the  King's  camp  by  Turin,  and  received  in  reward  two 
significant  diplomas.  One  from  Frederick  gave  him  the  right  to 
establish  a  mint  in  his  Piedmontese  land  at  Cesana,  to  the  obvious 
detriment  of  Humbert  Ill's  mint  at  Susa.  The  other  from  Berthold  IV 
of  Zahringen  ceded  to  him  the  Rector's  rights  over  the  city  of  Vienne. 
The  last  cession  had  two  sides  to  it.  On  the  one  hand,  at  a  nomi- 
nal  cost  to  Berthold,  the   Dauphins   obtained   a  position  in    Vienne 


Barbarossa  in   Piedmont  323 

concurrent  with,  if  not  superior  to,  that  of  the  Archbishops  of  the  city, 
whereas  they  had  before  merely  been  their  vassals  in  the  county  of  the 
Viennois.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Anscarids  of  Franche  Comte,  who 
had  claims  to  the  viscounty  in  the  city,  were  pretty  effectually  check- 
mated in  that  direction  by  the  superior  powers  confirmed  to  the 
neighbouring  Dauphin.  Evidently  the  King  was  strengthening  the 
hands  of  the  chief  rival  of  Savoy  ^ 

On  Frederick's  further  march  two  Piedmontese  towns  suffered 
destruction  at  his  hands ;  the  population  of  both  had  fled  to  the  hills 
and  was  not  to  be  found.  These  were  Chieri  and  Asti^  Chieri  seems 
to  have  been  in  revolt  against  the  Bishop  of  Turin,  one  of  whose  curies 
it  was ;  and,  probably  in  concert  with  Asti,  it  had  been  waging  suc- 
cessful war  with  its  neighbour,  William  VI  the  Old  of  Montferrat.  Both 
of  these  circumstances  were  natural  enough,  since  the  little  Commune 
was  struggling  up  from  villagedom  on  the  road  from  the  Alps  to  Asti, 
and  was  situated  on  the  spurs  of  the  hill-country  ruled  by  Marquess 
William.  Its  prosperity  would  make  it  revolt,  and  its  trade  would  be 
likely  to  receive  hurt  from  the  Marquess.  As  to  Asti,  there  was  the 
same  quarrel  with  the  Marquess  of  Montferrat,  who  was  doubtless  a 
vexatious  neighbour  for  a  great  commercial  city,  and  the  analogous 
ancient  quarrel  with  her  own  Bishop,  who  so  far  as  diplomas  went 
should  have  ruled  both  city  and  contado,  but  who  in  actual  fact  was  a 
very  refractory  subject  of  his  citizens''.  Besides  legal  reasons  a  dislike 
to  so  strong  a  local  power  would  influence  the  King  in  his  hostility. 

As  is  usual  in  this  early  Savoyard  period,  when  the  Emperor  and 
his  army  vanish  in  clouds  of  dust  on  the  eastward  roads  towards  his 
coronation  at  Rome,  they  take  the  great  movement  of  events  with 
them.  Our  Savoyard  theme  receives  light  from  that,  but  scarcely  forms 
a  part  of  it.  So  we  must  leave  Italian  history  to  shape  itself  under  the 
stern  auspices  of  Frederick  and  Pope  Adrian,  while  we  wait  on  the 
other  frontier  of  Humbert's  dominions  the  next  assault  that  the  unlucky 
Count  was  to  endure  from  the  changes  of  imperial  policy. 

In  fact,  on  his  return  to  Germany  in  the  autumn  of  II55^  the 
Emperor  Frederick  struck  out  a  new  plan  to  recover  Burgundy.     The 

^  Fournier,  op.  cit.  p.  19.  Cf.  Ilellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  44,  Manteyer,  Notes  addition- 
nelles,  pp.  281-3. 

-  Cf.  on  Chieri,  Cibrario,  Delle  storie  di  Chieri,  i.  38-42. 

■''  Gabotto,  JJAbazia  e  il  Comune  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  i.  114-7.  Otto  Fris. 
Gesta  Fnd.  Imp.  (M.G.H.  Script,  xx.  397-9).  The  Astigians  submitted  when  the 
King  reached  Annone.  See  the  erased  lines  in  Gott.  Viterb.  (M.G.H.  Script,  xxii. 
308).     See  also  Ogg.  Alf.  (Sella,  Cod.  Ast.  Malabayla,  II.  58). 

''  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  some  of  his  forces  returned  to  Germany  via  the 
great  St  Bernard  and  the  Mont  Cenis.  See  Otto  Fris.  Gesta  Frid.  Imp.  (M.G.H. 
Script.  XVII.  p.  409).     Humbert  was  passive  as  usual. 

21 — 2 


324  Humbert   Ill's  early  rule  (1148-68) 

Zahringen  Rectorate,  outside  the  Jura,  was  a  failure;  Count  William  IV 
of  Franche  Comte  was  dead.  So  a  new  arrangement  was  made.  In 
June  1 156  Frederick  married  Beatrice,  the  heiress  of  Raynald  III  of 
Franche  Comte,  and  in  her  right  took  possession  of  the  county.  Her 
cousins,  the  sons  of  William  IV,  were  satisfied,  one  Stephen  II  with 
the  sub-county  of  Auxonne  in  Franche  Comte,  the  other,  Gerard  I, 
with  the  French  county  of  Macon.  Berthold  IV  was  induced  to  resign 
the  extensive  Rectorate,  although  he  retained  the  ducal  rights  he  pos- 
sessed within  the  Jura.  As  compensation  he  received  the  "imperial 
advocacy,"  with  the  investiture  of  the  regalia,  of  the  bishoprics  of 
Geneva,  Lausanne  and  Sion.  That  is  to  say,  these  bishoprics,  once, 
save  Sion,  immediate  vassals  of  the  Empire,  were  included  in  his 
dukedom  ^ 

Along  with  this  enormous  increase  of  the  real  strength  of  Frederick 
in  Burgundy,  the  existing  system  of  alliances  there  changed.  Hitherto 
we  have  seen  the  Emperor,  the  Duke  of  Zahringen  and  the  Dauphin 
on  one  side,  and  the  Anscarids  and  Savoy  on  the  other.  Now  we  find 
the  Emperor,  the  Anscarids,  and  soon  the  Dauphin,  friends,  while  Savoy 
and  Provence  are  hostile  to  them,  and  the  Duke  of  Zahringen,  though 
loyal  to  the  Emperor,  is  something  of  a  mediator.  The  grant  of  the 
advocacy  and  investiture-right  of  Sion  to  the  Duke  of  Zahringen  was  a 
severe  loss  to  Humbert,  who  not  only  had  a  prescriptive  right  to  this 
very  dignity,  but  also  held  the  castle  of  Chillon  and  the  little  stretch  of 
land  by  it  from  the  Bishop-.  The  latter  fief  might  become  precarious, 
if  the  Bishop  was  appointed  under  the  influence  of  a  rival  House.  It 
is  true  the  same  deprivation  had  been  implied  by  the  grant  to  Berthold 
in  1 152,  but  that  had  been  unreal  by  reason  of  its  very  comprehensive- 
ness. Now  the  new  grant  was  meant  in  earnest,  in  order  to  place  the 
reduced  Rectorate,  or  Duchy  of  Lesser  Burgundy,  to  use  its  more  dis- 
tinctive name,  on  a  sound  footing. 

An  attempt  of  the  injured  Count  to  obtain  redress  can  be  traced, 
I  think,  during  Frederick's  solemn  Diet  at  Besangon  in  1157.  The 
Emperor  held  there  one  of  the  most  splendid  assemblies  of  the  Middle 
Ages.     His  Burgundian  vassals  were  for  the  first  time  well  represented. 

1  Fournier,  op.  cil.  pp.  20-2.  Cf.  Gingins,  Le  Rectorat,  and  Hellmann,  op.  cit. 
p.  44.  (It  will  be  seen  I  cannot  accept  Herr  Hellmann's  precise  conclusions  for  this 
decennium.)  The  texts  re  the  Bishoprics  are  :  Otto  Fris.,  Gesta  Frid.  Imp.  [M.G.H. 
Script.  XX.  413),  "  Bertholfus...tres  civitates  inter  Jurum  et  Montem  Jovis,  Losan- 
nam  Gebennam  et  N.  accepit,  caeteris  omnibus  imperatrici  relictis,"  and  Otto  S. 
Bias.,  Chron.  {M.G.H.  Script,  xx.  314),  "(Fridericus)  regnum  Burgundie...quod 
duces  de  Zaringin,  quamvis  sine  fructu,  tantum  honore  nominis,  jure  beneficii  ab 
imperio  jam  diu  tenuerant,  a  Bertolfo  duce  extorsit,  praestitis  sibi  trium  episcopatuum 
advocatia  cum  investitura  regalium,  scilicet  Lausannensis,  Genovensis,  Sedunensis." 

2  See  above,  pp.  92-4. 


Increase  of  Barbarossa's  power  in  Burgundy  and  Italy  325 

The  lay  Counts  hung  back  certainly,  but  the  higher  clergy  rallied  round 
him.  Among  the  Archbishops  present  was  St  Peter  II  of  Tarentaise, 
Humbert's  own  special  metropolitan,  and  I  imagine  that  we  may  con- 
sider that  this  persona  grata  to  the  Emperor^  was  entrusted  with  a 
mission  from  the  Count  concerning  Sion.  If  so,  we  need  not  doubt 
it  was  fruitless.  However  this  may  be,  Frederick,  having  obtained  a 
solid  basis  for  his  power  in  Franche  Comte,  proceeded  to  extend  it  in 
the  orthodox  way  by  gaining  ecclesiastical  support  in  the  south.  He 
intended  to  use  the  Burgundian  clergy  just  as  he  did  the  German. 
They  returned  fortified  with  privileges  and  public  power ;  and  the 
Archbishop  of  Vienne  was  made  head  of  the  revived  Burgundian 
chancery  ^. 

After  this  initial  success  in  Burgundy,  Frederick  was  resolved  on  an 
expedition  in  full  force  into  Italy.  He  would  defend  his  loyal  friends, 
bring  Milan  and  other  unduteous  towns  into  subjection,  and  establish  an 
Imperial  administration  within,  as  well  as  over,  the  unruly  cities.  In 
the  summer  of  11 58  four  German  armies  poured  through  the  Alpine 
passes.  Over  the  Great  St  Bernard  came  the  westernmost  of  the  four, 
led  by  Duke  Berthold  of  Zahringen^,  but  the  Count  of  Savoy,  although 
he  made  no  resistance,  held  aloof.  While  Frederick  warred  down  the 
Milanese  resistance  in  August  and  September  11 58,  Humbert  appears 
as  witness  to  a  petty  ecclesiastical  agreement  in  secluded  Faucigny'*. 
The  campaign,  of  course,  as  it  did  not  concern  Humbert  or  Savoy, 
must  here  be  omitted  ;  and  I  need  only  just  refer  to  the  main  pro- 
visions established  by  Frederick  at  his  famous  Diet  of  Roncaglia  and 
after.  They  included  the  prohibition  of  private  wars  of  cities  or  nobles, 
the  appointment  of  an  imperial  official  called  the  Podesta  to  administer 
the  central  government  of  the  city-communes,  in  lieu  of  the  elected 
Consuls,  and  the  reclamation  of  the  regalia  for  the  Empire.  These 
latter,  which  are  of  most  importance  for  Savoy,  were  those  imperial 
rights  or  functions,  which  were  either  inalienable  from  the  crown  or 
which  could  not  be  shown  to  be  alienated  by  formal  documents.  They 
thus  included  a  whole  class  of  functions,  such  as  fodrum  (i.e.  right  of 
the  monarch  to  maintenance) :  tolls,  coinage,  fisheries,  etc.,  which  either 
it  had  been  unusual  to  grant  away  in  the  palmy  days  of  the  Medieval 
Empire,  or  which  had  been  considered  inherent  in  the  possession  of  the 

1  See  Vi.  S.  Petri  Tarentas.  (AA.  SS.  Mai  II.  p.  330)  i.  r.  ill. 

^  See  Fournier,  op.  cii.  pp.  ■23-6.  Ilellmann,  op.  cit.  pp.  44-5-  Hellmann  con- 
siders Frederick  and  Humbert  still  on  friendly  terms. 

3  Otto  Fris.  Gesta  Frid.  Imp.  (M.G.H.  Script,  xxv.  430). 

^  Besson,  M^moires,  etc.  p.  346  (ed.  1871).  To  the  dating  words  in  Besson  (mil- 
lesimo  centesimo  quinquagesimo)  we  must  add  "octavo"  as  shown  by  Hellmann, 
op.  cii.  p.  45.  Only  thus  are  the  various  indications  reconciled,  Adrian  IV  Pope, 
Frederick  Emperor,  and  carrying  on  vigorous  war  with  Milan. 


o 


26  Humbert   Ill's  early  rule  (1148-68) 


local  publica  potestas  and  of  which  in  consequence  there  lacked  docu- 
mentary evidence  for  their  enjoyment  by  the  latter.  To  this  we  may 
add  that  the  usurpations  of  them  had  undoubtedly  been  considerable 
as  far  as  the  Communes  were  concerned.  In  any  case  they  were  now 
reclaimed,  and  mostly  rented  out  by  the  Emperor  to  the  cities  or  the 
nobles.  In  the  future  the  House  of  Savoy  was  slowly  to  acquire  them, 
one  after  the  other,  and  its  chiefs  were  often  hampered  in  the  con- 
solidation of  their  power  by  the  fact  that  these  rights  had  been  granted 
by  the  Hohenstaufen  to  others  within  their  local  Savoyard  sphere. 

It  was  not  long  after  the  Diet  of  Roncaglia  that  Frederick  took 
measures  calculated  to  bar  Count  Humbert  from  recovering  Turin, 
partly  no  doubt  from  settled  policy,  partly  from  anger  perhaps  at  the 
Count's  timid  independence.  On  the  19th  January  1159  at  Rivoli, 
whither  he  seems  to  have  proceeded  from  Turin,  and  thus  at  the 
borders  of  Savoyard  land,  the  Emperor  granted  a  diploma  to  the  Abbey 
of  S.  Solutore  of  Turin,  which  so  far  as  form  went  shut  out  effectually 
from  its  extensive  estates  all  powers  save  the  Empire  itself  ^  He 
followed  this  up  on  the  26th  January  by  a  wide-reaching  grant  to  the 
Bishop  of  Turin^.  Not  only  were  the  episcopal  estates  carefully 
exempted  from  outside  jurisdiction  ;  but  Pinerolo  and  its  valley,  really 
the  property  of  the  pro-Savoyard  Abbey  of  Pinerolo,  were  named  with 
them,  besides  the  superiority  over  the  great  Abbeys  of  Chiusa  and 
S.  Solutore.  Further,  Bishop  Charles  received  all  public  jurisdiction  in 
his  city  and  within  a  radius  of  ten  miles  round  it,  to  the  exclusion  of 
all  other  powers,  save  the  Empire  ^  Thus  if  the  Bishop  came  late  into 
the  rule  of  his  city,  the  grant  was  ample  enough.  It  must  be  remem- 
bered that  Charles  was  then  on  good  terms  with  the  Commune  which 
governed  the  town.  Other  parts  of  the  grant,  e.g.  that  of  Pinerolo, 
probably  never  took  effect.     But  the  loss  by  the  Count  of  his  influence 

^  Cartario  di  S,  Solutore,  Torino,  B.S.S.S.  XLIV.  p.  6t.  He  had  spent  Chri.stmas 
at  Alba  coming  from  the  East. 

2  Car.  AV^.  CCCXXII.  [Carte... arcivescovili  di  Torino,  B.S.S.S.  xxxvi.  p.  31). 

■*  Car.  Reg.  CCCXXII.  [Carte ..  .arcivescovili  di  To7-ino,  B.S.S.S.  xxxvi.p.  31),  "In 
jus  et  dominium  Taurinensis  ecclesie  omnino  transfundimus  et  delegamus...districtum 
...civitatis  et  omnia  que  vocata  sunt  publica  fiscalia  vel  comitalia  vel  vicecomitalia 
que  intus  vel  extra  civitatem  continentur  per  circuitum  miliariis  x.  ea  viz.  ratione 
quatinus...episcopus  suique  successores  potestatem  illic  habeant  per  se  vel  per  suos 
missos  judicandi  distringendi,  placilumque  tenendi...Igitur  quicumque  infra... urbem 
vel  hec  x.  miliaria  per  circuitum,  vel  in  prefatis  curtibus  et  castellis  habitator  exuterit 
vel  castellaverit  et  vassalli  ejusdem  episcopii  non  in  presentia  comitum  et  marchionum 
vel  missorum  nostrorum  eorum  lites  aliter  agere  ullomodo  vel  diffinire  liceat,  nisi  ante 
Karolum  episcopum  vel  ejus  successores  vel  eorum  legatos  decrevimus...Precipimus... 

ut  deinceps  nullus  dux,  etc Taurinensem  ecclesiam...disvestire,  etc.,  mansionaticum 

facere,  theloneum,  placitum,  districtum  vel  aliquam  publicam  functionem  exigere... 
audeat." 


The  schism  327 

over  Chiusa  was  a  severe  one ;  and  Chiusa  it  is  to  be  remembered  in 
addition  could  claim  a  superiority  over  Pinerolo  Abbey  itself  ^ 

The  power  of  the  Emperor,  however,  had  barely  reached  the  full 
before  it  began  to  wane.  In  1 159  he  met  with  two  checks,  the  renewed 
revolt  of  Milan,  and  the  outbreak  of  the  Schism.  The  latter  event 
was  due  to  an  error  of  judgement  on  Frederick's  part,  who  tried  to  force 
an  imperial  partizan  on  the  world  as  Pope,  when  the  anti-imperial 
candidate,  Cardinal  Roland,  had  received  an  obvious  majority  of  votes 
in  the  election.  So  on  the  nth  February  1160  a  synod  convoked  by 
Frederick  at  Pavia  declared  for  the  anti-Pope,  Victor  IV,  while  on  the 
2nd  of  March  the  Pope,  Alexander  III,  excommunicated  the  Emperor 
and  released  his  subjects  from  their  allegiance.  The  result  of  the 
rivals'  action  was  that  both  decrees  were  ineffectual,  thus  showing 
the  change  from  the  days  of  Gregory  VII.  Every  country  outside  the 
Empire,  which  itself  was  divided  in  sympathy,  acknowledged  Alex- 
ander III ;  while  Germany,  and  the  Imperialists  in  Italy,  remained 
loyal  to  Frederick.     It  was  a  question  of  one  party  tiring  the  other  out. 

Now  in  North  Italy,  the  Emperor  was  for  a  time  the  stronger.  In 
April  1 162  Alexander  had  to  leave  for  France.  Among  Frederick's 
schismatic  Bishops  we  find  as  we  should  expect  Bishop  Charles  of 
Turin.  And  among  the  Abbots  was  he  of  Chiusa,  who  obtained  on 
the  29th  April  1162  an  ample  diploma  from  Barbarossa,  which  at  least 
confirmed  his  superiority  over  the  Abbey  of  Pinerolo,  and  declared  him 
only  subject  to  the  Empire'^.  Meanwhile  the  war  with  Milan  was  ap- 
proaching a  victorious  close,  and  in  March  1162  the  city  was  levelled 
to  the  ground^     Completely  master  of  a  subject  country,  Frederick 

i  But  perhaps  this  superiority  was  only  claimed  after  Frederick  I's  diploma  to 
Chiusa  of  1161.  See  Gabotto,  VAbazia  e  il  Coinune  di  Pinerolo,  etc.  B.S.S.S.  i. 
pp.  117-21.  With  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  45,  I  reject  the  view  that  Marquess  William 
of  Montferrat  gained  Savoyard  lands  now  or  before.  The  curies  mentioned,  Leynl, 
Cirie,  Settimo,  etc.  belong  to  a  part  of  the  county  of  Turin  where  we  do  not  hear  of 
the  Ardoinids.  Cf.  below,  pp.  332  and  395  n.  5,  401  n.  i,  409.  The  Marquess 
Boniface  II's  original  lands  in  Cirie  in  1228  were  evidently  distinct  from  those  held  of 
Savoy.  The  claim  of  the  Bishop  of  Turin  of  feudal  superiority  over  Chiusa  was  an 
old  one,  see  above,  p.  234,  n.  i. 

-  M.H.P.  Chart.  11.  839.  Their  possessions  at  the  mouth  of  the  Valle  di  Susa 
were  to  be  "libera  et  ab  omni  exaccione  immunia  salva  per  omnia  imperiali  justicia." 
With  regard  to  Giaveno  there  is  a  special  "  salvo  jure  comitis."  The  abbot  could 
only  be  sued  in  civil  matters  before  the  Emperor ;  his  vassals  only  before  himself. 
The  date  of  the  charter  is  rather  important  as  it  falls  before  the  Diet  of  Besan9on  in 
Sept.  1 162,  and  Humbert  is  gently  entreated.  The  charter  (known  by  the  copy  only) 
has  correctly  Ind.  X.  and  "anno  imperii  vii."  but  incorrectly  "anno  regni  x."  (for  xi.). 

■'  Galvaneus  Flamma  ccxvi.  [RR.  II.  SS.  xi.  655)  says  "Comites  Sabaudiae  in 
destructione  civitatis  Mediolani  multum  ferventes  fuissent."  He  may  have  got  the 
notice  from  an  early  chronicle ;  but  it  is  totally  unsupported  and  most  unlikely.  See 
above,  p.  325.     Cf.  Car.  Reg:  p.  119. 


328  Humbert   Ill's  early  rule  (1148-68) 

could  march  through  Piedmont  in  August  1162  and  across  the  Great 
St  Bernard  into  Burgundy  and  Germany^ 

In  Burgundy  his  cause  was  far  from  unprosperous.  The  favoured 
Archbishops  of  Lyons,  Vienne  and  Besangon,  the  Bishops  of  Geneva, 
Lausanne,  Sion,  Grenoble  and  other  sees,  were  on  his  side  and  mostly 
attended  his  Diet  of  Besan^on  in  1162.  The  Anscarids  of  Macon  were 
his  kinsmen,  the  Dauphine  was  for  him  and  he  had  gained  over 
Raymond-Berengar  II,  then  Count  of  Provence.  Hostile  to  him  there 
only  remained  one  large  tract  of  territory.  This  was  Savoy.  St  Peter  11 
of  Tarentaise,  St  Anthelm  of  Belley,  and  the  Bishops  of  Aosta  and  Mau- 
rienne  were  all  for  Alexander  III,  and  with  them  they  led  their  Count, 
Humbert.  So  important  was  the  latter's  decision  that  he  obtained  a 
special  privilege  from  the  Pope,  that  he  could  not  be  excommunicated 
save  by  direct  papal  command".  Frederick's  indignation  was  no  doubt 
proportionate.  To  this  period  of  strain,  c.  1 162-3,  when  the  Emperor's 
Brabancon  mercenaries  were  become  a  public  pest  in  Burgundy,  I  think 
we  should  attribute  a  disaster  Humbert  III  is  said  to  have  suffered. 
The  tale  is  that  he  was  captured  by  Count  Gerard  of  Macon,  the 
Emperor's  kinsman,  and  let  free  for  a  ransom  of  6000  marks  which  he 
omitted  to  pay 'I  Probably  he  was  not  able  to  do  so.  At  any  rate  we 
find  him  somewhere  about  this  time  raising  1000  Maurician  solidi  from 
St  Maurice  Agaune  on  a  mortgage  of  some  of  his  rights^ :  and  his  later 
history  suggests  impecuniosity^  There  seem  to  have  been  no  direct 
hostilities  with  the  Emperor.  The  latter's  deputy,  Archbishop  Raynald 
of  Cologne,  could  safely  go  to  and  return  from  Italy  via  the  Great  St 
Bernard  in  1164  and  1166^;  but  a  diplomatic  campaign,  accompanied 
by  local  wars,  was  carried  on  vigorously  over  Burgundy.  The  religious 
motive  must  not  be  underrated,  but  local  rivalries  were  of  course  the 
chief  predisposing  cause.     Two  of  these  rivalries  occupied  Humbert's 

^  Oehlmann,  Die  Alpenpdsse  im  Mittelalter,  Jahrb.  f.  schweiz.  Geschichte,  ill.  268. 

^  See  below,  pp.  330-1  ;  see  also  Hellmann,  op.  at.  p.  47,  and  Gabotto,  op.  cit. 
p.  122. 

3  Car.  Reg.  cccxxx.  {4non.  Laudun.  M.G.H.  Script,  xxvi.  447),  "Sciendum 
quod  comes  Gerardus  (de  Mascons)  eundem  comitem  Savoie  cepit,  dum  guerram 
secum  haberent;  unde  pro  redemcione  sua  in  6000  marcis  ei  tenebatur.  Ille  vero 
eligit  perjuriam  incurrere,  et,  propria  fama  neglecta,  pactum  transgredi  pocius  quam 
illam  solvere  pecunie  summam."  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  50,  considers  this  an  error; 
but  though  the  authority  is  poor,  the  notice  fits  in  with  the  known  circumstances. 

*  Car.  Reg.  cccxxi.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  72).  The  war  with  Gerard  did 
not  perhaps  conclude  till  11 73.     See  below,  pp.  337-9. 

®  See  below,  pp.  339  and  433. 

*  See  Oehlmann,  Die  Alpenpdsse  im  Mittelalter,  Jahrb.  f.  schweiz.  Gesch.  ill. 
268,  for  1 166.  For  1164  see  Fournier,  Le  Roy aume  d^ Aries,  p.  47;  but  as  Raynald 
went  to  Vienne  to  hold  a  synod  in  that  year  {Materials,  Thomas  Becket,  Rolls  Series, 
v.  p.  120),  it  would  seem  that  he  took  the  Mont  Cenis  or  the  Mont  Genevre  route. 


Humbert  Ill's  wars  and  alliances  329 

attention  for  some  years.  First  there  was  a  war  with  the  Dauphine. 
There  Humbert  had  claims  due  probably  to  his  mother's  dowry',  and  the 
marriage  of  the  Dauphiness  Beatrice,  daughter  of  Guigues  V  (ob.  1161), 
with  Alberic  Taillefer  of  Toulouse  in  1 163-4,  seems  to  have  inflamed  an 
old  quarrel.  Perhaps  Humbert,  having  got  rid  of  Gertrude  of  Flanders, 
wanted  to  marry  the  Dauphiness.  The  regent  for  the  child-Dauphins 
was  Taillefer's  father,  Raymond  V  of  Toulouse,  who  was  represented 
by  Raymond's  brother  Alphonse.  A  tedious  war  of  border-forays 
accordingly  began  and  lasted  for  some  ten  years'^. 

The  second  event  more  closely  concerning  Savoy  was  the  change  of 
attitude  of  Duke  Berthold  IV  of  Zahringen.  The  advocacy  of  the 
Duke  over  the  three  intra-Jurane  dioceses  had  been  fruitful  in  discord ; 
he  had  ceded  that  of  Geneva  to  his  ally,  the  Count  of  the  Genevois, 
but  in  the  Diet  of  Besancon  in  1162  Frederick,  anxious  then  for 
episcopal  support,  had  cut  the  knot  by  summarily  revoking  his  grant  as 
regards  that  see.  So  now  we  find  Berthold,  who  was  probably  disillu- 
sioned with  regard  to  Barbarossa,  becoming  an  ally  of  Savoy.  Some 
time  about  1164  Humbert  married  as  his  third  wife  the  Duke's  sister 
Clementia,  the  divorced  wife  of  Henry  the  Lion  of  Saxony^  It  was  on 
his  marriage  in  all  probability  that  he  recovered  the  advocacy  of  Sion 
from  his  brother-in-law^. 

It  shows  the  intrinsic  weakness  of  the  schismatics,  that  in  spite 
of  their  apparent  superiority  they  steadily  lost  ground  in  Burgundy 
from  1 162  on.  In  1163  the  Bishop  of  Sion  was  a  partizan  of  Alex- 
ander III;  the  Bishop  of  Geneva  had  followed  suit  by  1167.  Most 
of  the  Bishops  of  the  province    of  Vienne  were  Alexandrines,  when 

^  See  above,  p.  292,  and  below,  p.  340. 

^  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  pp.  46-50.  Cf.  Savio,  /  priini  coniL  etc.  pp.  503-5.  And 
see  especially  Fournier,  op.  cit.  pp.  26-53.  The  war  in  the  Dauphine  lasted  till  1 173. 
See  below,  pp.  337-9.  For  it  see  Vi.  S.  Petri  Tarantas.  (AA.  SS.  Mai  il.  326) 
"Inter  principem  suum  comitem  Humberlum  et  Hildefonsum  comitem  Tolosanum  in 
regioneGratianopolitana  eo  tempore  dominantem,  non  sine  multis  incendiis  et  homicidiis 
guerram  diutius  agitatam  multo  labore  sedavit  (S.  Petrus)."'  The  Count  of  Toulouse, 
however,  was  Raymond  V,  and  I  follow  Fournier's  statement  that  his  brother  Alphonse 
was  his  deputy  in  Dauphine.  Cf.  Vic  and  Vaissete,  Languedoc,  ed.  Primal,  vi. 
p.  27.     Alfonso  of  Aragon  also  attacked  Toulouse;  see  below,  pp.  337-9. 

*  See  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  49.  Cf.  Savio,  /  primi  conti,  pp.  525-31,  and 
Gingins,  Le  Kectorat  de  Bourgogne,  M.D.R.  i.  pp.  88-9.  The  Chroniijues  {M.H.P. 
Script.  II.  671,  cf.  123-7)  have  a  tradition  that  Humbert  married  a  daughter  of  the 
Duke  of  Zahringen.  Contemporary  evidence  is  supplied  by  Ralph  de  Diceto,  Rolls 
Series,  i.  353,  sub  anno  1173:  "filiam  primogenitam  Humberti  comitis  de  Moriana, 
quam  ex  relicta  Henrici  Sa.xonici  ducis  sustulerat,  sponsam  accepit."  Now  Clementia 
of  Zahringen  w;is  repudiated  by  Henry  the  Lion,  Duke  of  Saxony,  in  1162,  and  we 
find  Berthold  IV  intimate  with  Humbert  in  1168.  See  below,  pp.  333-4.  Clementia 
was  clearly  still  living  in  1173.     See  below,  p.  339. 

••  Gingins,  Le  Kectorat,  etc.,  M.D.K.  I.  pp.  88-9;  and  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  45. 


330  Humbert  Ill's  early  rule  (1148-68) 

Frederick's  chancellor,  Raynald  of  Cologne,  tried  in  vain  to  rally  them 
in  the  summer  of  11 64  to  the  anti-Pope's  party  ^  A  further  shock  was 
given  to  the  latter  by  the  anti-Pope  Victor  IV's  death,  for  his  successors 
in  the  schism  had  even  less  support  in  public  opinion.  Frederick's 
stay  at  Besan5on  in  July  1166  made  little  change  in  the  situation.  In 
1 167  the  Alexandrine  Archbishop  of  Lyons  could  enter  his  city  for  the 
first  time-. 

A  sign  of  the  decreasing  tension  of  the  struggle  may  probably  be 
seen  in  the  quarrel  between  Humbert  III  and  St  Anthelm  Bishop  of 
Belley  over  the  regalia  of  the  latter's  see  which  must  have  occurred 
about  this  time^  With  St  Peter  of  Tarentaise  and  the  Cistercian 
order,  St  Anthelm  had  been  a  protagonist  of  Alexander's  claims,  since 
his  consecration  in  September  1163.  A  stern  Carthusian,  he  had  twice 
resigned  a  priorship,  being  perhaps  anything  but  popular  with  his 
monks,  before  he  became  Bishop.  Now  he  denied  altogether  the 
Count's  claim  to  jurisdiction  and  suzerainty  over  his  episcopium  and 
over  criminous  clerks,  and  doubtless  could  allege  the  absence  of  any 
document  to  prove  it.  Matters  came  to  a  head,  in  spite  of  the  Count's 
timid  inaction,  when  a  mestral  ^  of  his  arrested  a  priest  on  some 
charge.  St  Anthelm  thereupon  excommunicated  the  mestral  with  all 
his  household,  and  sent  Bishop  William  of  Maurienne  to  release  the 
priest.  This  was  done,  the  mestral  declaring  he  would  complain  to  the 
Count.  Soon  after  he  attempted  to  recapture  his  prisoner,  who  found 
it  best  to  flee  the  country.  But  the  priest  was  overtaken  and  in  the 
scuffle  of  recapture  was  mortally  wounded  by  some  of  the  mestral's 
household ^  Now  it  was  the  Bishop's  turn  to  complain  to  or  rather  to 
threaten  the  Count.  He  demanded,  not  only  satisfaction  for  the  death 
of  the  priest,  but  also  that  the  Count  should  renounce  all  his  claims 
over  the  episcopium^,  under  pain  of  excommunication.  In  answer 
Humbert  appealed  to  his  privilege  of  being  free  from  excommunication 

1  He  had  held  an  assembly  in  Vienne  without  result :  see  Fournier,  op.  cit.  pp.  47 
and  49. 

'^  See  Fournier,  op.  cit.  pp.  45-54,  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  47. 

^  For  the  Count  is  staunchly  upheld  by  Alexander  III,  which  would  hardly  be  the 
case  after  1168.     See  below,  pp.  333-7. 

*  The  word  used  '\s  praepositus.     For  the  office  of  mestral,  see  below,  pp.  433-4. 

^  "Quidam  de  pueris  praepositi." 

6  Vi.  S.  Anthehni  (AA.  SS.  Junii  v.  p.  ■234),  xxix.  :  "Dictus  etiam  comes 
quaedam  regalia  in  ecclesiae  possessionibus  calumpniabatur  sibi  deberi ;  licet  eadem 
occasione  injuriam  facere  in  eadem  seu  exactionem,  Anthelmo  episcopo  vivente,  non 
auderet.  xxx.  Super  praemissis  igitur  cum  eum  episcopus  appellasset,  indignatus 
magis  coepit  minari,  asserens  non  diutius  se  passurum  quin  ea  quae  sui  juris  esse 
asserebat,  obtineret.  Cum  autem  ipsum  iterate  moneret,  et  ei  excommunicationis 
sententiam  minaretur  nisi  calumniae  abrenuntiaret,  et  propter  sacerdotis  mortem  Deo 
satisfaceret,  quantum  ad  ipsum  pertinebat,  etc." 


The  regalia  of  Belley.      Failure  of  Barbarossa     331 

save  by  the  Pope  himself.  None  the  less  the  Bishop  did  excommunicate 
him  in  his  own  presence ;  and  the  Count  submitted,  while  making  his 
moan  to  Alexander  III.  Soon  came  the  papal  brief  ordering  St  Peter 
of  Tarentaise  and  another  Bishop  to  absolve  Humbert  in  case 
St  Anthelm  was  obdurate.  Of  course  the  Saint  was  obdurate  on  the 
ground  that  the  Pope  could  not  absolve  fwn  absolvenda,  and  the  other 
two  prelates  did  not  dare  to  fulfil  their  task.  The  Pope  had  in  the  end 
to  perform  the  ceremony  himself,  to  the  disgust  of  St  Anthelm  who 
retired  for  a  while  to  his  Carthusian  cell  and  only  resumed  his  duties 
by  express  command.  As  for  the  chicken-hearted  Humbert,  he  dared 
not  attend  Mass  till  St  Anthelm  himself  absolved  him,  on  promises  of 
satisfaction  which  he  hardly  kept\  We  shall  come  upon  the  quarrel 
again  at  intervals-. 

Meanwhile  in  November  1166  Frederick  I  had  appeared  in  Lodi 
with  a  resistless  army,  to  put  Italian  affairs  on  a  solid  basis.  Since  his 
triumph  in  1162  his  cause  had  been  rapidly  decHning.  In  1164,  when 
he  had  hoped  to  act  the  sovran  without  the  support  of  an  army,  he  had 
been  forced  ignominiously  to  flee  to  Germany.  The  main  reason  for 
this  change  of  fortune  was  of  course  the  incompatibility  of  a  centraliz- 
ing imperial  government  introduced  from  without,  with  the  communal 
autonomy  which  had  come  to  maturity  within.  But  the  breakdown  of 
Frederick's  system  was  hastened  by  the  intolerable  tyranny  of  his  foreign 
podestas,  under  the  orders  of  Raynald  of  Cologne.  Heavy  taxation  was 
not  likely  to  recommend  an  authority  to  a  people,  with  whose  ideas  of 
government  that  authority  no  longer  corresponded.  Almost  all  the 
cities  of  the  north  joined  the  Lombard  League  which  was  being  formed 
to  resist  the  Emperor.  Few  were  the  exceptions,  such  as  Pavia,  Lodi 
and  Turin. 

It  appears  that  scarcely  was  Frederick  out  of  Italy  in  August  1162, 
when  the  Turinese  turned  out  their  schismatic  Bishop  Charles,  and 
replaced  him  by  a  certain  William.  Then  in  1165  Charles  is  Bishop 
again  and  presumably  heads  the  imperial  party  in  the  Commune ^ 
Such  country-nobles  in  Piedmont,  as  had  retained  some  independence, 

^  Vi.  S.  Anthelmi  (AA.  SS.  Junii  v.  pp.  234-5),  xxix.-xxxii.  Cf.  Savio, 
op.  cit.   pp.  5 1 1- 1 5. 

"^  See  below,  pp.  342,  345-6,  426.  The  Count  offered  to  give  satisfaction 
according  to  public  law,  "se  forensi  jure  respondere  paratum,"  but  Anthelm  declined  ; 
"ego  te  convenio  jure  poli,'"  he  said.  The  Count,  though  he  professed  his  hatred, 
dared  not  do  anything  ("contestans  hominem  non  esse  sub  caelo.  quern  sic  exosum 
haberet,"  loc.  cit.  xxxii.). 

'^  I  here  follow  Prof.  Gabotto,  V Abazia  e  il  Comnne  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  i. 
pp.  1 1 2-2 1,  who  grounds  his  belief  that  the  Bishop  Charles,  who  precedes  William, 
and  the  Bishop  Charles  who  succeeds  him,  are  the  same  person,  on  their  autographs 
which  he  says  show  the  same  handwriting. 


332  Humbert   Ill's  early  rule  (1148-68) 

were  also  imperialists.  In  March  1163  the  Emperor  had  given  a 
diploma  to  the  Marquesses  of  Romagnano\  and  in  October  1164  one 
to  Marquess  William  of  Montferrat^,  while  we  find  the  Marquess  of 
Saluzzo  at  his  courts 

When  the  Emperor  reentered  Italy  on  this  memorable  campaign 
he  found  everywhere  the  city  gates  barred  against  him.  For  the 
present  he  left  them  alone,  and  made  it  his  first  object  to  conquer 
Rome  itself  and  drive  out  Alexander  III  who  had  returned  to  the 
Eternal  City  in  the  year  before.  For  a  while  all  went  well  for  Barba- 
rossa.  The  Leonine  City  was  captured,  Alexander  fled  to  Benevento, 
and  Rome  itself  surrendered.  Then  in  August  1167  the  plague  broke 
out  in  his  army.  It  was  practically  a  case  of  extermination :  and 
Frederick  retreated  to  Pavia  in  September  with  a  remnant  only,  to  face 
as  he  could  the  Lombard  League  headed  by  restored  Milan. 


Section  II.     Humbert  III  as  an  imperial  partizan. 

So  destroyed  in  power  as  he  was  by  the  pestilence  of  1167,  Frederick 
was  soon  reduced  to  something  like  extremity  by  his  foes.  His  army 
was  entirely  dispersed.  They  blocked  all  the  passes  leading  to  Ger- 
many, and  in  the  winter  of  1 167-8  he  lurked  about  in  west  Lombardy 
between  Pavia  and  Turin  in  fear  of  attack ^  Besides  the  city  of  Pavia, 
Marquess  William  the  Old  of  Montferrat  and  the  Count  of  Biandrate  ' 
stood  by  him,  and  it  was  in  their  castles  that  he  made  brief  and  secret 
halts,  distributing  the  greater  part  of  his  Lombard  hostages  among 
them  for  safe  keeping.  Soon  the  danger  became  greater  as  the  Lom- 
bards sent  an  army  on  his  track  in  the  early  spring  of  II68^     It  was 

^  Carte  del  Finer olese,  B.S.S.S.  in.  ^.  203. 

-  Stumpf,  4031. 

^  Tallone,  Reg.  March.  Saluzzo,  Nos.  37,  40,  44,  51. 

■*  The  fullest  account  of  Frederick's  escape  is  given  by  a  letter  of  John  of  Salisbury 
{Materials,  St  Thos.  Becket,  Rolls  Series,  vi.  401 -5).  Other  details  are  to  be  found 
especially  in  Gotifredi  Viterb.  Gesta  Frid.  30  [M.G.H.  Script,  xxii.  321)  and 
Otton.  S.  Bias.  Chron.  [M.G.H.  Script,  xvii.  313),  which  has  a  slight  legendary 
admixture. 

^  Joh.  Saris.,  "...eique  (Friderico)  Maurienensis  comes  ob  injurias  sibi  illatas 
omnem  exitum  praeclusisset,  ut  Lumbardorum  manus  nulla  ratione  posse  evadere 
videretur,  ipse  comitis  Blandratensis  et  marchionis  Montisferrati  fretus  auxilio,  divertit 
in  terram  marchionis,  relictis  xxx.  obsidibus  Lumbardorum  apud  Blandratum.  Alios 
autem  obsides  quos  acceperat  per  castra  marchionis  divisit  custodiendos  et  ipse  cum... 
comite  et  marchione  quia  eum  Lumbardi  congregato  exercitu  usque  ad  xx.  millia 
militum  prosequebantur  et  obsidere  decreverant,  per  castella  quasi  in  umbra  mortis 
latitans  fugitabat,  ut  vix  (sicut  aiunt  probi  viri  pleni  fide  et  auctoritate  qui  inter- 
fuerunt)  duobus  diebus  aut  tribus  auderet  in  eodem  hospitio  pernoctare." 


Humbert  Ill's  treaty  with   Barbarossa  2>33 

time  to  escape  ;  but  the  only  safe  and  approachable  pass  was  the  Mont 
Cenis  which  led  through  Humbert  Ill's  land,  and  the  angry  Count  was 
obdurate  to  the  demand  of  the  suzerain  who  had  injured  him. 

It  was  William  the  Old  who  undertook  the  difficult  task  of  per- 
suading his  nephew  Humbert  III  to  let  the  schismatic  Emperor  through 
his  dominions.  No  doubt  the  presence  with  the  Emperor,  and  the 
persuasions,  of  Duke  Berthold  IV  of  Zahringen  had  their  effect  with  his 
brother-in-law  as  well.  But  the  chief  inducements  proffered  seem  to 
have  been  material.  The  restitution  of  the  lands  lost  by  Humbert, 
mountains  of  gold,  and  eternal  gratitude  were  all  promised,  and  the 
object  was  at  last  obtained  ^  The  secret  was  well  kept,  the  hostages 
were  hurriedly  collected  and  then  on  the  8th  of  March  the  Emperor 
suddenly  arrived  at  S.  Ambrogio  in  the  Val  di  Susa,  with  thirty  knights 
in  his  train.  There  he  seems  to  have  heard  that  the  Lombard  army 
was  on  his  track  and  was  besieging  Biandrate.  In  high  wrath  next  day 
he  hastened  towards  Susa,  and  brutally  hung  a  Brescian  hostage  outside 
the  town  before  he  entered  it  and  took  up  his  lodging  in  the  Count's 
castle  there^  The  charge  seems  to  have  been  the  betrayal  of  the 
Emperor's  whereabouts.  But  it  was  a  mistaken  action,  for  the  towns- 
men of  Susa  rose  at  the  news.  They  were  thoroughly  in  sympathy 
with  the  free  communes,  and  had  long  been  accustomed  to  some 
measure  of  liberty^.  Now  they  closed  and  guarded  the  gates,  seized 
on  the  Lombard  hostages,  and  although  they  did  not  actually  forbid 
egress   to  the  Emperor  and    Empress,   they  did    refuse   to  allow  any 


^  Joh.  Saris.,  "Marchioegit  cum  cognato  suo  comite  Maurienensi,  ut  imperatorem 
permitteret  egredi,  promittens  ei  non  modo  restitutionem  ablatorum,  sed  niontes 
aureos,  et  cum  honore  et  gloria  imperii  gratiam  sempiternam. "  For  Berthold's  share 
in  the  transaction,  see  below. 

*  Joh.  Saris.,  "Imperator  autem,  collectis  obsidibus  quos  disperserat,  ad  reditum 
properans,  venit  ad  S.  Ambrogium  habens  circiter  xxx.  milites  in  comitatu  suo,  et 
inde  mane  festinanter  egrediens  prope  Secusiam  in  eminentia  cujusdam  montis  suspendit 
quemdam  obsidem  nobilem  Brixiensem,  imponens  ei  quod  conjurationis  Itaiorum 
conscius  fuerat,  et  (quod  plus  est)  artife.x  congregati  exercilus  qui  eum  ab  Italia 
expellebat ;  alios  vero  obsides  secum  duxit  intra  Secusiam."  Cf.  Ann.  Medial. 
{M.G.H.  Script,  xviu.  p.  377),  "nono  die  Martii  suspendit  imperator  Gilium  de 
Pranco  obsidem  de  Brixia  justa  Seuxiam,  dolore  et  furore  repletus  quod  Mediolanenses, 
Brixienses  etc.  obsiderent  Blandate"  :  and  Cont.  O.  Morena  {M.G.H.  Script,  xviii. 
657),  "mense  Martio,  privatim,  ita  quod  etiam  nee  ipsi  Longobardi  qui  cum  eo 
fuerant,  nisi  forte  paucissimi,  sciverunt,  in  Alamanniam  per  terram  comitis  Uberti... 
qui  et  comes  dicitur  de  Morienna,  iter  arripuit."  Otto  of  S.  Blaise  enlarges  this  into 
a  hanging  of  a  hostage  at  each  stopping-place,  till  as  the  Lombards  come  up  to  the 
bodies  one  by  one  they  are  frightened  ofll  the  pursuit.  Biandrate  was  captured  by  the 
Lombards,  the  hostages  there  released,  and  the  surviving  Germans  of  the  garrison 
handed  over  to  Gilio's  widow. 

^  See  above,  pp.  303-6,  and  below,  pp.  449-50. 


334  Humbert  III   as  an  imperial  partizan 

Italian-speaking  man  to  leave  the  town^  If  the  Emperor  was  not 
really  prevented  from  leaving  the  castle,  he  thought  it  dangerous  to  do 
so.  Probably  he  was  right,  and  the  mere  examination  of  his  train  for 
Lombard  captives  would  have  led  to  a  riot  against  the  hated  Germans-. 
Accordingly  a  plan  to  escape  was  devised.  One  of  his  chamberlains, 
Hartmann  von  Siwenheich,  was  remarkably  like  him  in  face  and  figure, 
including  the  red  beard  and  hair  from  which  his  surname  of  Barbarossa 
was  derived.  This  devoted  follower  sat  in  the  Emperor's  place  at  the 
royal  board,  clothed  in  the  imperial  garb,  and  then  was  led  to  rest 
guarded  by  the  train  ^.  Meanwhile  Frederick,  disguised  as  a  mere  man- 
at-arms,  with  Berthold  of  Zahringen,  and  perhaps  two  or  three  Serjeants, 
rode  through  the  town-gates  unrecognized,  apparently  to  prepare  the 
next  night's  lodging  for  one  of  the  train,  probably  for  Berthold  himself. 
Berthold  was  well  acquainted  with  Maurienne ;  doubtless  he  and 
Humbert  III  had  hunted  together  on  the  Alps.  On  they  rode  over 
the  snow-covered  Mont  Cenis  that  night,  a  wonderful  ride  for  early 
March,  and  then  down  Maurienne.  It  does  not  seem  that  they  met 
Humbert  III,  but  they  were  gladly  welcomed  by  the  Count  of  the 
Genevois,  an  old   friend  of  Berthold's^.     It  was  not  long  before  the 

^  Joh.  Saris.,  "Gives  autem  et  incolae  loci  portas  claudi  fecerunt,  appositis  custo- 
dibus  armatis  et  tyranno  obsides  abstulerunt,  dicentes  sibi  ab  aliis  civitatibus  excidium 
et  exterminium  imminere,  si  vicinos  suos  et  amicos,  viros  Italiae  nobilissimos,  sic 
paterentur  abduci  in  Alemanniam  occidendos;  praesertim  cum  adhuc  in  Italia  suspen- 
derit  virum  potentem  et  generosum  ;  sibi  vero  et  suis  exitum  patere  pro  libitu.  Tantam 
quidem  adhibuerunt  diligentiam  obsidibus  retinendis  ut  neminem  permitterent  egredi 
qui  italice  loqueretur." 

2  Got.  Vit.     "Venit  Segusium,  qua  latet  hostis  bonus, 
Insidias  Ligurum  tunc  evasisse  putaret, 
Cum  sibi  iam  mortem  Segusius  arte  pararet, 
Dum  dolus  instaret,  fraus  patet;  ipse  cavet." 
Otto  S.  Bias,  agrees.     I  think  they  are  good  evidence  of  what  Barbarossa  thought 
since  they  are  supported  by  his  subsequent  action.     For  the  Susian  version  see  John 
of  Salisbury,  n.   i,  above. 

•*  Got.  Vit.     "Sic  ubi  regis  eques  pro  rege  manere  paratur. 


Miles  erat  regi  specie  conformis,  et  illi 
Barba,  manus,  facies  similis  flavique  capilli; 
Quern  faciunt  regis  sede  sedere  sui  etc." 
Otto  S.   Bias,  gives  the  name  Hartmann  de   Sibineich,  which  seems  genuine,  as  a 
chamberlain  H.  de  Siwenheich  appears  in  Frederick's  diplomas. 

■*  Joh.    Saris.,  "Imperator  autem,  assumpto  habitu  servientis,  quasi  ut  alicujus 
magni  viri  procuraret  hospitium,  cum  aliis  v.  servientibus  noctu  egressus  est."    I  think 
we  should  trust  Got.  Vit.  in  his  details,  save  perhaps  the  single  comrade  only. 
"Nocte  fugit  dominus,  solo  socio  comitatus; 
Montis  Cilleni  nocte  sub  alpe  venit. 


Dux  Berloldus  erat  per  quem  fuga  nostra  paratur ; 


The  terms  of  the  treaty  with   Barbarossa       335 

Susians  found  out  what  had  happened,  and  accepted  it  with  philosophy. 
They  kept  the  hostages,  of  course,  but  the  Empress  Beatrice  and  the 
German  train  were  allowed  to  follow  their  lord  unhurt.  With  great 
relief  she  received  a  letter  from  her  husband  announcing  his  safe 
arrival  in  Geneva,  and  a  few  forced  marches  brought  her  safely  home  to 
Franche  Comtek 

There  remains  to  discuss  the  terms  made  with  Count  Humbert  III. 
For  one  thing  the  subsequent  history  shows  the  Count  in  alliance  with 
Barbarossa,  even  if  there  are  suspicions  on  his  loyalty  for  the  next  few 
years ^.  Of  his  acknowledging  the  anti-Pope  there  could  be  no  ques- 
tion ;  and  Frederick  who  had  himself  attempted  in  his  extremity  to 
treat  with  Alexander  through  the  Prior  of  the  Grande-Chartreuse'",  was 
not  in  a  position  to  demand  such  a  thing  of  either  friend  or  foe.  None 
the  less  Humbert  relaxes  from  his  hostile  attitude,  and  his  terms  are  at 
least  hinted  at  in  the  sources.  What  the  Emperor  had  taken  from  him 
was  to  be  restored ;  a  sum  of  money  was  to  be  paid,  and  favour  was  to 
be  shown  him-*.  In  Burgundy  we  cannot  doubt  that  the  investiture  of 
the  Bishop  of  Sion  was  formally  assured  to  him.  In  Italy,  we  know  his 
losses  previous  to  the  accord.  What  must  have  been  restored  was  the 
county  of  Turin,  where  Frederick  had  set  up  as  a  rival  the  Bishop 

Hie  aput  Alpinos  populos  {Noti  Gotifredi;    in 
valle  Morienna)  vehementer  amatur; 
Cujus  et  ingeniis  vita  redempta  fuit. 
Alpibus  ingeritur,  vallemque  subit  Murionum, 
Suscipit  egregium  gavisa  Gehenna  patronum  (Fridericum) 
Cui  comes  et  populus  contulit  omne  bonum." 
Otto  S.   Bias,  has  the  same  more  briefly. 

'  Got.  Vit.  "Hiis  ita  salvatis,  ratio  monet,  ut  videatis, 

Quid  Segusa  facit,  quid  agat  regina  Beatrix, 

Et  fortes  reliqui,  quos  labor  ille  capit. 
Civis  ubi  regera  noctu  percepit  abire. 
Arte  dolum  reprimunt,  quern  morte  parant  aperire, 

Unde  patent  domine  pacis  ubique  vie. 
Pergit,  et  ignorat,  quo  ducant  fata  maritum; 
Carta  {Not.    Got.   Imperatoris)  refert  ipsum  patria 
cum  pace  potitum. 


Gaudet,  et  invento  longa  statione  petito, 

Cujus  ad  imperium  fervet  abire  cito. 
Inde  suam  patriam  cum  conjuge  Cesar  adivit." 
Otto  S.  Bias,  not  only  makes  the  Susians  burst  in  the  doors  to  murder  the  Emperor 
and  then  dissemble  their  grief  at  his  escape,  but  makes  the  Empress  lead  away  an 
army  to  Franche  Comte. 

2  In  1 1 70  we  find  Humbert  employing  for  the  first  time  the  formula  "regnante 
Frederico  imperatore"  and  the  like.     Cf.  Car.  Heg.  CCC.XL.,  cccXLi. 
•*  Joh.  Saris.,  loc.  cit.  See  Fournier,  op.  cit.  pp.  55-6. 
■•  See  above,  p.  333. 


;^;^6  Humbert  III   as  an  imperial  partizan 

Charles  ^  The  latter  was  now  in  difficulties  and  could  be  disregarded. 
On  the  7th  April  1168  he  was  acknowledging  the  Commune  of  Chieri, 
and  in  August  he  was  making  an  arrangement  with  the  Chierese  con- 
cerning the  important  castle  of  Montossolo".  What  the  Turinese  said 
to  it  is  not  very  easy  to  say,  but  in  1173  we  find  Humbert  claiming  to 
be  lord  of  Turin,  Cavoretto  and  CoUegno ;  and  to  possess  the  homage 
of  the  Counts  of  Castellamonte  and  the  Canavese.  At  the  same  time, 
as  well  as  in  1171,  the  Abbot  of  Chiusa  is  in  his  service;  and  the 
Marquess  of  Montferrat,  with  two  Piossasco  and  a  certain  Peter  of 
Turin,  go  on  an  embassy  for  him^.  Nor  does  this  evidence  stand  alone. 
In  1 1 76  the  Turinese  make  a  treaty  for  peace  and  war,  with  special 
reserves  in  favour  of  the  Emperor,  the  Count  of  Savoy  and  the  other 
lords  which  they  have.  The  Bishop  is  not  even  mentioned  except  in 
this  general  way*.  Similarly  in  11 72  Humbert  has  castellans  at  Mira- 
dolo  in  the  Val  di  Fenestrelle^  and  to  the  same  date  should  belong  his 
great  donation  to  the  Abbey  of  Pinerolo*.  About  the  same  time,  in 
alliance  with  William  of  Montferrat,  he  is  at  war  with  Asti'^.  When  he 
is  again  in  disfavour  with  the  Emperor,  he  is  in  possession  of  Pianezza, 
Rivalta,  Carignano  and  Torretta  in  the  plain  of  Piedmont^  In  short 
all  the  indices  point  to  a  very  real  recovery  of  power  and  possessions  in 

^  See  above,  p.  326  and  p.  331.  The  grant  to  S.  Solutore  and  probably  that  to 
the  Marquess  of  Montferrat  were  exemptions  from  other  jurisdiction  besides  the 
Emperor's. 

-  Cibrario,  Del/e  storie  di  Chieri,  I.  pp.  48-53,  and  11.  pp.  11-15.  He  consents 
to  the  Chierese  enjoying  "omnibus  bonis  usis  quos  bona  terra  debet  habere  ac 
possidere. " 

^  See  below,  pp.  338,  451.  I  think  the  burgess  Rodulfus  de  Warci  who  appears 
in  the  1173  treaty  may  be  an  Italian,  since  in  Cartario  di  Finerolo,  B.S.S.S.  I.  p.  72, 
we  have  a  Pinerolese  Aldemar  Varcin.  Yet  in  Feb.  1170  Bishop  Milo  is  pretty 
clearly  head  of  the  Commune  of  Turin.     See  below,  p.   347. 

*  See  below,  p.  344.  The  wording  is :  "contra  homines  excepto  domino  impera- 
tore  et  ejus  missis  et  excepto  comite  de  Sabaudia  et  suis  missis  et  exceptis  aliis 
dominis  quos  habent,  et  excepto  comite  Oberto  de  Byandra"  (Car.  Re^.  CCCLV., 
Carte  del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  III.  2,  p.  416).  Evidently  Humbert  HI  is  lord  of  the 
city  under  the  Emperor.  Only  he  has  a  missus  to  represent  him,  like  the  Emperor. 
See  above,  p.    290,  n.   2. 

*  Car.  Sup.  XXXVII.  [Cartario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  11.  p.  69).  Humbert's  then 
connection  with  the  Emperor  is  proved  by  the  presence  of  the  Carthusian  Dietrich, 
who  though  no  schismatic  was  a  near  relative  of  the  Emperor  (see  Fournier,  op.  cit. 
pp.  55-6).  Gualfred  di  Piossasco  is  also  a  witness.  The  mere  fact  that  the  south 
Piedmontese  abbots  of  Casanova  and  Staffarda  get  a  safeguard  for  their  abbeys  shows 
the  extension  of  Humbert's  dominions. 

"  Car.  Sup.  xxxvi.  [Cartario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  Ii.  p.  77).  Various  comital 
rights  are  granted.  It  is  really  a  settlement  of  a  dispute.  Humbert  II  is  unlikely  to 
be  the  Count  of  the  document,  which  is  unhappily  only  known  from  a  catalogue. 

"^  See  below. 

^  See  below,  pp.  347-9. 


Humbert  Ill's  wars  and  alliances  337 

the  Torinese,  together  with  definite  rights  in  the  city  and  an  alliance 
with  the  Communed 

This  was  not  done  in  a  day  and  the  war  with  Asti  hints  at  the 
process  of  recovery.  Marquess  William  the  Old  of  Montferrat  and  the 
city  of  Pavia  were  hard  pressed  by  the  League  after  Frederick's  flight. 
The  new  city  of  Alessandria,  named  in  honour  of  the  Pope  by  the 
League,  must  have  been  a  special  thorn  in  his  side,  and  now  Asti  was 
also  anti-imperial.  On  the  17th  June  1172  the  new  city  with  the  help 
of  Milan,  Asti  and  other  cities  routed  him  at  Mombello.  Still  they  did 
not  try  to  crush  him,  and  Humbert  III  came  to  his  aid  by  seizing  on 
the  Astigian  merchants  in  their  transit  through  Savoy.  In  result,  prob- 
ably late  in  1172,  we  find  the  Marquess  making  a  sorry  peace  with 
Asti,  surrendering  Annone  to  the  city,  and  engaging  to  stand  its  patron 
with  the  Emperor,  and  to  obtain  the  release  of  the  captives  held  by  the 
Count  of  Savoy,  along  with  compensation  for  their  losses^. 

One  effect  of  the  disaster  to  Frederick  in  1167  was  the  steady 
decrease  of  the  schism ;  and  curiously  enough,  now  that  the  Count  of 
Savoy  was  friendly  to  the  Emperor,  less  interest  was  taken  in  Bur- 
gundian  affairs  by  the  latter.  The  local  wars  in  the  latter  kingdom 
meantime  went  on.  A  new  combatant  was  added  by  the  succession  of 
Raymond-Berengar  III,  brother  of  Alfonso  II  of  Aragon,  to  the  county 
of  Provence.  These  two  were  inimical  to  Raymond  V  of  Toulouse 
and  his  brother  Alphonse,  regent  of  the  Dauphine,  while  Count  Gerard 
of  Macon  made  a  fourth  party,  attacking  Humbert  III  perhaps  from  the 
north,  while  the  latter  fought  with  the  regent  of  the  Dauphine. 

In  the  midst  of  these  turmoils  Humbert,  none  of  whose  actions 
place  him  in  the  light  of  a  conqueror,  bethought  him  of  a  new  turn  of 
policy.  By  dementia  of  Zahringen  he  had  two  daughters,  his  only 
children.     Now  across  the  Rhone  lay  the  dominions  of  the  greatest 

^  See  for  this  treaty  with  Barbarossa  especially  Gabotto,  L'Abazia  e  il  Comune  di 
Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  I.  pp.  123-5.     Cf.  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  51. 

-  The  treaty  is  in  Sella,  Cod.  Ast.  Malabayla,  11.  638.  The  clause  on  Humbert  III 
runs  thus:  "Et  debet  recuperare  incarcerates  Astenses,  quos  habet  comes  Moriene 
sine  omni  tenore  et  adjuvare  eos  bona  fide  ad  recuperandum  quod  ibi  amiserunt." 
Savio,  I pri?ni  conti,  p.  507,  points  out  the  treaty  (which  has  no  date)  must  be  dated 
h)efore  11 76  when  William  Longsword  of  Montferrat  (William  the  Old's  son,  therein 
mentioned)  went  to  Palestine,  and  should  be  dated  before  Barbarossa's  entry  into 
Italy  in  1174.  Prof.  Gabotto  points  out  the  imperialist  Count  of  Biandrate's  treaty 
with  Asti  and  Chieri  in  November  1172  (by  which  his  claims  on  Chieri  were  limited) ; 
and  I  may  add  that  Marquess  William's  journey  to  England  in  the  winter  of  11 72-3 
shows  he  left  peace  behind  him  in  Italy  (see  below,  p.  338).  For  the  meaning  of  the 
clause  quoted,  see  Gabotto,  Asti  e  la  politica  sabauda,  B.S.S.S.  xvill.  p.  12.  Cf. 
Gabotto,  JOAbazia  e  il  Comune  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  i.  pp.  124-5,  ^^'^  Hellmann, 
op.  cit.  p.  59.  William  had  made  peace  with  Ivrea  in  November  1171  (Gabotto,  Uh 
millennio  di  storia  eporediese,  B.S.S.S.  I  v.  p.  53). 

P.  O.  22 


2^S  Humbert   III   as  an  imperial  partizan 

vassal  of  the  King  of  France,  Henry  II  of  England,  and  Henry  II  was 
at  enmity  with  Humbert's  enemy  Raymond  V  of  Toulouse,  on  the 
ground  of  the  homage  which  the  latter  owed  him  for  Toulouse  and 
refused  to  do.  True,  Henry  was  not  exactly  the  friend  of  Barbarossa, 
but  if  his  alliance  could  really  be  gained,  Barbarossa,  so  much  occupied 
with  Germany  and  Italy,  need  not  be  feared.  The  means  to  gain  it 
were  at  hand  in  the  Count's  daughters  and  great  inheritance,  for  Henry 
was  ambitious  for  his  House  and  had  a  yet  unbetrothed  son,  John 
Lackland.  Accordingly  in  1 1 7 1  Benedict  Abbot  of  Chiusa  was  sent  to 
the  King  on  Humbert's  behalf,  offering  Alice,  his  eldest  daughter,  for 
wife  to  John,  then  five  years  old.  All  the  Count's  land  was  to  be  her 
inheritance,  and  with  it  went  the  entrance  into  Italy ^  A  highly- 
coloured  story  in  the  next  century  told  how  Henry  preferred  this  match 
to  one  with  a  daughter  of  the  Greek  Emperor,  because  it  might  lead  to 
the  acquisition  of  the  kingdom  of  Italy  I  And  in  fact  the  Italian  rebels 
did  offer  their  crown  to  the  English  King,  and  Savoy  would  seem  to 
link  his  duchy  of  Aquitaine  with  Lombardy^  However,  Henry  II  did 
not  immediately  accept  the  offer,  and  long  negotiations  ensued,  William 
of  Montferrat  and  two  Piossasco  arriving  at  Henry's  court  for  the  final 
act  presumably  in  1 1 7  2.  In  them  a  leading  part  was  taken  by  St  Peter 
of  Tarentaise,  who  himself  visited  the  English  King,  and  if  we  are  to 
believe  his  biographer  was  the  real  deviser  of  a  general  peace  *. 

^  Rob.  de  Monte,  Rolls  Series,  p.  ■250.  "1171  Humbertus  comes  Moriennae 
misit  [Benedictum]  Abbatem  S.  Michaelis  de  Clusa  ad  Henricum  regem  Anglorum, 
pro  componendo  matrimonio  inter  Johannem  filium  regis  et  filiam  suam,  offerens  ei 
totam  terram  suam.  Fuit  enim  idem  comes  filius  Amati  comitis  et  ditissimus  in 
possessione  urbium  et  castellorum :  nee  aliquis  potest  adire  Italiam,  nisi  per  terram 
ipsius."  The  name  Amatus  is  of  course  a  wrong  Latinization  of  the  vernacular  Ame 
=  Amadeus  III.  Benedict  III  of  Chiusa  had  already  been  in  England  in  1166  on 
another  negotiation  (see  Savio,  II  marchese  Gugliehno  di  Monferrato,  p.  136). 

2  Anon.  Laudun.  {M.G.H.  Script,  xxvi.  447),  which  has  the  interesting  remark 
attributed  to  Henry  II  "(Comes)  nobilis  quidem  est,  licet  pauper." 

*  Petrus  Blesiensis,  Ep.  113  (Migne,  ccvii.  p.  340).  "Praesentes  fuimus,  ubi 
regnum  Palestinae,  regnum  etiam  Italiae  patri  vestro  (Henrico)  aut  uni  filiorum 
suorum  quem  ad  hoc  eligeret,  ab  utriusque  regni  magnatibus  et  populis  est  oblatum." 
Cf.  Girald.  Cambr.  Instruct.  Princip.  Dist.  II  {M.G.H.  Script,  xxvii.  401),  "Nee 
solum  ad  Francorum... regis  abutens  comoditate,  verum  eciam  ad  Romanum  imperium, 
occasione  werre  diutine... inter  imperatorem...et  suos  oborte,  tarn  ab  Ytalia  tota  quam 
urbe  Romulea  sepius  invitatus,  comparata  quidem  sibi  ad  hoc  Moriane  vallis  et  Alpium 
via,  sed  non  efficaciter  obtenta,  animositate  sua  ambitum  extendit." 

*  Cf.  above,  p.  329,  n.  2.  The  Vi.  S.  Petri  Tarentas.  goes  on:  "Cujus  (pacis) 
occasione  negotii  ad  illustrem  Anglorum  regem  Henricum  vehementer  desideratus 
accessit,  et  tam  reverenter  acceptus  est  ut  excedere  modum  omnem  humanum  devotio 
videretur."  It  is  William  of  Montferrat  and  his  companions,  however,  who  came  as 
envoys  from  Count  Humbert  (see  text  of  treaty,  Gesta  Regis  Henrici,  Rolls  Series, 
I.  p.  40). 


Treaty  with   Henry   II   of  England  339 

However  this  may  be,  matters  were  concluded  by  the  beginning  of 
1 1 73,  for  in  February  of  that  year  Henry  H  with  his  wife  and  sons  pro- 
ceeded from  Anjou  to  Montferrand  in  Auvergne.  There  a  kind  of 
congress  of  pacification  was  held  on  the  12th  of  February,  Alfonso  H 
of  Aragon,  Raymond  V  of  Toulouse,  Gerard  of  Macon  and  Hum- 
bert HI  being  all  present^  They  all  later  removed  to  Limoges,  meeting 
at  both  places  royal  entertainment.  What  the  terms  arranged  between 
the  four  were,  we  are  not  told,  but  Raymond  submitted  to  do  homage 
to  Henry  H  and  his  sons^,  and  Humbert  was  not  satisfied  in  his 
claims  on  the  Dauphine^  Meantime  the  treaty^  between  Henry  H 
and  Humbert  HI  was  concluded  by  the  surrender  of  Alice.  For  5000 
marks  of  silver,  of  which  1000  were  paid  on  the  conclusion  of  the 
treaty,  1000  on  delivery  of  his  daughter,  and  3000  were  to  be  due  on 
the  actual  marriage-day,  the  impecunious  Count  handed  over  his  elder 
daughter  Alice  to  King  Henry  to  be  married  to  the  latter's  youngest 
son  John,  when  the  two  children  were  old  enough^.  On  his  daughter, 
Humbert  settled  his  entire  countship",  although  he  might  make  reason- 
able provision  for  his  younger  daughter  or  for  other  purposes.  He  was 
not  hoping  for  a  male  heir,  which  is  a  sign  that  his  wife,  dementia,  was 
still  alive ;  but  in  the  case  that  he  should  have  one  against  expectation, 
a  large  dowry  for  Alice  was  agreed  on'.  First,  John  and  she  were  to 
have  the  entire  county  of  Belley,  with  the  two  comital  castles  of  Rossillon 

^  Ralph  de  Diceto,  Rolls  Series,  i.  p.  353.  "Adelfunsus,  rex  Aragonum, 
Reimundus  comes  S.  Egidii,  Girardus  comes  Viennensis,  Humbertus  comes  de 
Moriana,  tanquam  ex  condicto  convenerunt  ad  curiam  regis  Angliae  apud  Montem 
Ferandum  in  Arvernia  ii°  id.  Feb."  The  title  Count  of  Vienne  was  assumed  by 
Gerard  about  11 70  (Manteyer,  Notes  additionttelles,  pp.  281-2).  Cf.  Gesta  Kegis 
Henrici,   Rolls  Series,  11.  pp.  35-6.       "Rex...ivit  in  Alverniam  usque  ad  Montem 

Ferratum Et  illuc  venit  ad  eum  liubertus  comes  de  Mauriana  et  adduxit  secum 

Aalis  filiam  suam  majorem....Venerunt  etiani  illuc  ad  regem  rex  Arragoniae  et  comes 
de  S.  /Egidio  qui  inimici  erant  ad  invicem,  et  rex  duxit  eos  secum  usque  Limoges  et 
ibi  paceni  fecit  inter  eos." 

*  See  the  authorities  cited.  ^  See  below,  p.  340. 
■*  Given  in  Gesla  Regis  Henrici,   i.  pp.  36-41. 

'  "Quam  rex  comparavit...ad  opus  Johannis  filii  sui  junioris"  says  the  Gesta  Regis 
Henrici,  II.  p.  36,  brutally. 

*  "Totum  comitatum  suum"  are  the  words  of  the  treaty  which  is  given  in  full 
in   Gesta  Regis  Henrici,   I.  pp.  36-41. 

'  Ralph  de  Diceto,  p.  353,  "quia  spes  masculinae  prolis  nulla  supererat." 
Hellmann,  op.  cit.  pp.  57-8,  considers  this  treaty  shows  the  weakness  of  the  con- 
nection with  the  Empire,  because  Humbert  disregards  the  Roncaglian  constitution 
forbidding  the  division  of  fiefs  {M.H.G.  Const.  I.  247),  and  also  his  own  homage  to 
the  Emperor  by  becoming  Henry  H's  vassal.  That  the  treaty  could  not  be  pleasing 
to  Frederick  I,  I  agree,  but  the  other  contentions  do  not  seem  to  hold  good,  (i)  The 
Roncaglian  Constitution  need  not  apply  to  Burgundy;  and  Humbert  reserved  the 
suzerainty  of  the  ceded  homages,  (ii)  It  does  not  appear  that  Humbert  HI  did 
homage  to  Henry  II. 

22 — 2 


340  Humbert  III  as  an  imperial  partizan 

and  Pierrechatel.  With  regard  to  this  clause  Humbert  IV  de  Beaujeu 
was  to  be  induced  to  give  up  his  claims,  or  else  compensation  was  to  be 
given  Alice  out  of  other  Savoyard  lands  ^  Further,  the  young  couple 
were  to  have  the  whole  valley  of  Novalaise,  to  the  south  of  Belley^, 
Chambery,  Aix-les-Bains,  Apremont,  La  Rochette,  Montmayeur,  and 
La  Chambre,  all  of  which  were  to  be  surrendered,  saving  the  suzerainty 
due  to  the  Count,  at  once^.  Lastly,  the  Count  ceded  his  Italian  posses- 
sions and  claims,  Turin,  Cavoretto,  Collegno,  and  the  homage  of  the 
Counts  of  the  Canavese  and  of  Castellamonte,  with  the  viscount's  castle 
of  Chatillon  in  Val  d'Aosta.  Here,  too,  John  could  receive  homage, 
saving  the  Count's  rights,  at  once ;  and  it  is  significantly  said  that  these 
possessions  are  to  be  held  as  the  Count  or  his  father  held  them,  a  sign 
that  Amadeus'  powers  had  been  greater  than  his  son's ^.  To  them  are 
added,  Humbert's  claims  in  the  county  of  Graisivaudan,  in  fact  the 
legacy  of  his  old  quarrel  with  the  Dauphin*.  The  Count's  good  faith 
was  guaranteed  by  the  oaths  of  his  friends  and  vassals  which  furnish  a 
list  of  the  highest  interest  for  his  dominions.    His  second  daughter  is  to 

^  Gesta  Regis  Henriciy  I.  40,  "Juraverunt  (missi  Humberti)  similiter  quod  conces- 
sione  Umberti  junioris  facient  pro  posse  suo  habere  filium  regis  Russilon  et  Perecastel 
et  quicquid  ei  a  comite  concessum  est  in  comitatu  Belicensi."  The  abbot  of  Chiusa 
and  the  archdeacon  of  Salisbury  are  to  allot  the  compensation  in  case  of  refusal, 
Humbert  Junior  is  Humbert  IV  of  Beaujeu,  who  had  presumably  succeeded  his 
mother  Alice  of  Savoy  in  her  dowry  (see  above,  p.  295,  n.  3).  On  the  subject  of 
these  castles  and  the  treaty  Miss  Norgate's  account  {^England  under  the  Angevin 
Kings,  II.  pp.  1 3 1-3)  needs  correction. 

*  "Totam  vallem  Novalesiae."  Seeing  the  smallness  of  the  little  valley  of 
Novalaise  in  Savoy  round  Aiguebelette,  I  cannot  help  thinking  it  must  correspond  to 
the  later  bailiwick.  In  the  thirteenth  century  the  bailiwick  of  Novalaise  included 
all  the  Savoyard  possessions  in  Sermorens  and  South  Belley  (see  above,  pp.  79-80). 
As  the  possessions  in  the  Viennois  and  the  Lyonnais  were  not  large  till  the  thirteenth 
century  (see  above,  pp.  76  and  81-2),  the  district  of  Novalaise  in  11 73  might  likely 
enough  include  them,  and  would  the  more  probably  be  ceded  as  lying  on  the  approach 
to  the  Mont  Cenis,  via  Lyons,  which  led  from  La  Tour  du  Pin  to  Aiguebelette  and 
Chambery. 

^  It  will  be  noticed  that  these  cessions  are  mostly  homages,  e.g.  Chambery  and  La 
Chambre,  not  demesnes.  But  had  the  Count  special  rights  over  burgi  in  his  counties? 
See  below,  p.  433,  n.  8.  This  at  least  was  the  case  at  Susa,  where  a  third  of  the 
town  belonged  to  the  Abbot  of  S.  Giusto. 

*  Gest.  reg.  Hen.  i,  37,  "sicut  unquam  pater  ejus  aut  ipse  ea  melius  tenuit  omnia 
quae  subscripta  sunt,  aut  liberius."  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  57,  considers  the  Italian 
cessions  merely  cessions  of  claims,  but  see  above,  pp.  335-7-  Of  the  homages  it  is 
said  "incontinenti  (Johanni)...fiant  et  prestentur  hominia  et  fidelitates  ab  omnibus 
hominibus  suis  (Humberti)  per  totam  terram  suam,  salva  fidelitate  sua,  quamdiu 
terrara  tenebit "  {loc.  cit.  pp.  37-8), 

5  Loc.  cit.  p.  38.  "Praeterea  (Humbertus)  concedit  eis  et  haeredibus  eorum... 
quicquid  juris  habet  in  toto  comitatu  Gratianopolitano  et  quicquid  in  eo  adquirit  vel 
adquirere  poterit. " 


Barbarossa  reinvades  Italy  341 

take  the  place  of  Alice,  if  Alice  happens  to  die.  So  matters  were 
arranged,  and  Humbert  returned  to  his  lands  at  peace  with  all  men. 
Four  of  the  castles  ceded  to  John  were  at  once  handed  over  to  the 
King ;  they  must  have  been  demesne  castles,  but  beyond  Rossillon  and 
Pierrechatel  I  cannot  suggest  identifications \  Humbert,  however,  in 
his  turn  had  demanded  a  settlement  on  the  bridegroom,  and  Henry's 
compliance  brought  about  the  revolt  of  his  eldest  son,  from  whose  share 
in  the  Angevin  dominions  it  was  taken.  Soon  after  one  may  suspect 
little  Alice  died^;  and  the  whole  marriage- treaty  fell  through.  Nothing 
more  is  heard  of  it.  It  remains,  however,  a  clear  evidence  of  genuine 
designs  of  Henry  H  on  Italy,  else  the  bride's  dowry  would  never  have 
been  a  string  of  castles  leading  to  the  Passes  ^ 

Whatever  were  Humbert's  objects  in  the  alliance  with  Henry  II,  he 
was  still  in  favour  of  Frederick's  success  in  Italy.  At  any  rate  he 
opposed  in  no  way  the  new  expedition  which  the  indomitable  Emperor 
made  to  Italy  in  1174.  The  value  of  the  submission  of  Savoy  was 
shown  by  the  fact  that  Frederick  could  reach  his  adherents  in  Piedmont 
by  an  unblocked  pass.  But  from  the  sequel  we  may  doubt  whether  he 
felt  any  real  amity  for  the  Count.  The  route  he  chose  was  the  Mont 
Cenis  and  on  the  29th  of  September  he  encamped  outside  Susa  with 
some  eight  thousand  men^  Next  day  he  proceeded  to  take  revenge  for 
the  insult  the  imperial  majesty  had  suffered  six  years  before.  He  drove 
the  citizens  out,  and  burnt  the  entire  town.  Presumably  he  did  not  do 
more,  because  after  all  they  had  let  his  wife,  who  was  now  looking  on, 
and  his  men  go  free.  An  exception  was  made  of  Humbert's  own  castle, 
which  fortunately  for  us  was  placed  under  the  special  care  of  a  rhyming 
chronicler  ^ 

^  Ralph  de  Diceto,  I.  353,  "Quatuor  castella  comitis  quae  vel  natura  loci  vel 
artificio  manuum  munitiora  reputabantiir,  juxta  voluntatem  regis  deputata  sunt 
custodiae."  The  almost  impregnable  Montmelian  might  seem  likely,  but  it  is  not 
in  the  treaty.  Of  those  mentioned  in  the  treaty  Chatillon,  Chambery  (Menabrea, 
op.  cit.  pp.  385-8),  La  Chambre  (id.  pp.  400-2),  and  Aix  {id.  p.  382),  seem  certainly  in 
the  hands  of  vassals  in  11 73.  Perhaps  La  Rochette  {id.  p.  392)  which  had  been 
enfeoffed,  or  Apremont  {id.  p.  390)  and  Montmayeur  {id.  pp.  393-4)  which  later  were 
certainly  enfeoffed  to  homonymous  Sires,  may  have  been  demesne  castles  in  11 73. 

^  She  was  dead  by  1 178.     See  below,  pp.  346  and  352. 

^  I  may  note  that  La  Rochette,  Montmayeur  and  Apremont  defended  the  road 
from  Lyons  to  the  Mont  Cenis  from  the  attacks  of  the  Dauphin,  since  they  commanded 
the  Isere  valley  in  the  direction  of  Grenoble.  It  has  been  suggested  that  Humbert 
anticipated  the  English  alliance  of  the  thirteenth  century.  Cf.  Hellmann,  op.  cit. 
pp.  54-8. 

••  Ann.  Medial.  {M.G.H.  Script,  xviil.  377),  "  Imperator...venit  Secuxiam  cum 
octo  milibus  pugnatorum." 

'  Gotifred  of  Viterbo,  who  writes  as  follows  {M.G.H.  Script.  XXII.  326). 
" (Fridericus)  Carpit  iter;    solitas  dat  Murienna  vias. 
Montis  Cinisi  via  tunc  satis  obtima  risit ; 


342  Humbert   III   as  an  imperial  partizan 

The  Count  himself,  to  whose  people  and  revenues  this  damage  was 
done,  followed,  it  seems,  meekly  in  the  train  of  the  conqueror  on  his 
further  march.  Turin  submitted  and  Asti  soon  surrendered.  Then  on 
the  29th  October  began  the  famous  siege  of  Alessandria.  The  heroic 
resistance  of  the  citizens  baffled  all  Frederick's  efforts,  and  by  Lent  11 75 
his  patience  and  good  faith  were  alike  giving  way.  One  sign  of  this 
was  his  attempt  to  capture  Alessandria  under  cover  of  a  truce  he  him- 
self proposed.  Another  was  his  diploma,  dated  the  26th  of  March  1175, 
in  favour  of  his  old  enemy  St  Anthelm  of  Belley.  The  regalia  which 
Humbert  claimed  were  by  this  grant  conceded  in  full  measure  to  the 
Bishop.  He  could  even  fortify  his  city,  and  all  other  jurisdiction  than 
his  was  shut  out\  The  contemptuous  wrong  to  Humbert  was  made  the 
more  remarkable  by  the  'Bishop's  notorious  and  unbending  leadership 
of  the  Alexandrine  party  in  Burgundy.  What  acts  of  remissness  on 
Humbert's  part,  besides  the  alliance  with  Henry  H,  had  vexed  the 
Emperor,  we  do  not  know.  Perhaps  he  had  merely  been  ostentatiously 
CathoHc  in  his  demeanour  during  Lent,  and  Frederick,  amid  the  rain 
and  fasting,  took  his  virtuous  vassal  at  his  word.  But  it  was  not  the 
favour  promised  in  1168.  The  only  satisfaction  Humbert  had  lay  in 
the  fact  that  the  Emperor  did  not  insist  on  investing  St  Anthelm  with 
the  regalia  himself-. 

Rex  nichil  ammisit,  sed  prisca  pericla  revisit. 

Saxa  movent  populi  {Not.  "rusticorum  illorum")  tunc  super  arce  siti. 
Tunc  cum  Segusis  Cesar  pro  crimine  lusit, 
Civibus  exclusis,  domibus  rebusque  caducis, 

Ictibus   argutis    os    {Not.    "Segusiensium")  perit  atque  cutis. 
Sola  domus  comitis,  stans  Integra,  cetera  plancxit. 
Rex  pius  hoc  sancxit;  domus  incombusta  remansit, 

Cujus  tutor  ego  {Not.  "jussu  imperatoris ")  qui   mea  metra  lego. 
Pluribus  armatis  castrisque  per  arva  paratis, 
Tunc  regum  genetrix  venit  regina  Beatrix, 

Lesa  prius  gratis,  nunc  sibi  leta  satis. 
Gaudia  regine  sunt  quas  videt  ipsa  mine  ; 
Hec  decet  in  fine  genti  dare  dona  canine; 

Ammodo  Segusie  pergere  nostra  sinent." 
The  date  is  given  by  Vi.  Alexandri  III  {RR.  II.  SS.  ill.  463)  "Tertio  Kal.  Oct. 
castramentatus  est  juxta  Secusiam.     Altera  autem  dic.civitatem  ipsam  combussit." 

1  See  below,  p.  426.  The  date  of  the  document  is  guaranteed  by  the  agreement 
of  all  the  dates,  save  the  imperial  year,  which  should  be  20,  not  22,  and  by  the 
mention  of  the  siege  of  Taboretiitn  (read  Roboretum),  as  Alessandria  was  called  by  the 
indignant  Frederick,  after  the  name  of  one  of  its  component  villages. 

2  See  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  60.  I  cannot  agree  with  his  view  that  the  Belley 
diploma  shows  friendship  with  Humbert.  It  decided  for  the  Bishop  on  just  those 
points  on  which  Humbert  and  St  Anthelm  continued  at  variance  till  the  latter's  death. 
Cf.  Fournier,  op.  cit.  p.  57.  But  the  latter  goes  too  far  in  saying  St  Anthelm  was 
recognised  as  an  immediate  vassal  of  the  Empire.    Imperial  investiture  and  the  denial 


Legnano  343 

The  Count's  loyalty,  however,  to  the  imperial  party  does  not  seem 
to  have  been  decreased.  For  one  thing,  it  is  probable  that  he,  who 
desired  the  signory  of  Turin  and  whose  dominions  included  a  number 
of  small  towns  where  communal  notions  were  already  stirring,  was 
not  sorry  to  see  the  Lombard  cities  tamed'.  He  did  not  bring  good 
fortune  to  the  cause  he  espoused.  After  the  failure  of  his  Good  Friday's 
treachery,  the  Emperor  set  out  for  Pavia.  He  only  escaped  attack  from 
the  far  larger  army  of  the  Lombard  League  by  playing  upon  their 
reluctance  to  take  the  aggressive  against  the  Roman  Emperor  in  person. 
As  it  was,  a  general  dismissal  of  the  opposing  armies  was  arranged 
in  order  to  make  room  for  negotiations.  The  latter  resulted  on  the 
1 6th  of  April  in  the  truce  of  Montebello'^.  Humbert  himself  was  one 
of  the  jurors  on  the  Emperor's  side,  and  was  doubtless  one  of  the 
negotiators.  His  vassal,  now  probably  the  Emperor's  also,  Gualfred  di 
Piossasco^  was  chosen  by  Frederick  for  one  of  the  six  arbitrators  who 
were  to  arrive  at  an  accommodation  between  the  Emperor  and  the 
cities.  During  the  truce  a  parley  was  arranged  at  Pavia  between 
Frederick  and  the  representatives  of  Alexander  HI.  Perhaps  the 
diploma  to  St  Anthelm  had  foreshadowed  some  such  move.  But  the 
negotiations  came  to  nothing,  and  the  war  was  renewed  in  a  desultory 
fashion,  while  Frederick  awaited  fresh  forces  from  Germany^. 

After  Easter  (4  April)  1176  came  the  news  that  the  German  rein- 
forcements were  crossing  the  Alps  towards  the  Lake  of  Como.  Thither 
Frederick  hurried  to  lead  them  on.  There  is  no  sign  that  Humbert  let 
himself  be  carried  away  so  far  as  to  join  in  the  hasty,  and  almost 
stealthy  transit^  There  followed  on  the  29th  of  May  the  decisive 
battle  of  Legnano,  which  assured  the  independence  of  the  Communes 
for  fifty  years  and  the  development  of  Italy  after  her  own  fashion. 
Frederick  had  to  lurk  about  the  country-side  till  he  succeeded  in 
reaching  Pavia,  while  the  Empress  at  Como  wore  mourning  for  his  sup- 
posed death.     He  saw  that  it  was  useless  to  carry  on  the  schism  and 

of  the  Count's  rights  which  might  exist  over  the  Bishop,  although  not  over  the  Bishop's 
men,  are  carefully  withheld.     See  above,  pp.  330-1,  and  below,  p.  426. 

^  See  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  59.  Humbert's  successor  Count  Thomas  began  his 
rule  with  grants  or  confirmations  to  the  towns,  e.g.  Susa,  Aosta  and  Miradolo. 

^  Car.  Reg.  CCCLi.  (M.G.H.  Const,  i.  p.  329). 

'  He  was  one  of  Humbert's  envoys  to  Henry  II  c.  11 72  (see  above,  p.  338).  The 
Piossasco  became  immediate  vassals  of  the  Empire  for  a  Turinese  toll  (Car.  Reg, 
DCCCXLix.)  probably  either  now  or  c.  1185  at  the  time  of  Humbert's  disgrace.  See 
Hellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  69. 

"•  Cf.  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  61. 

*  In  Jan.  11 76  Frederick  decided  a  question  between  the  Canons  of  Great  St 
Bernard  and  a  citizen  of  Turin  without  reference  to  the  Count.  He  was  then  at 
Turin.     (Car.  Reg.  CCCLIII.,  Misc.   Valdost.,  B.S.S.S.  xvill.  p.  94.) 


344  Humbert  III  as  an  imperial  partizan 

the  war,  and  at  once  entered  into  long  negotiations  with  the  Pope  and 
the  cities,  which  ended  in  his  meeting  with  Alexander  at  Venice  in 
July  1177.  The  schism  was  closed  by  the  recognition  of  the  rightful 
Pope  and  the  first  step  was  taken  to  close  the  contest  with  the  Lombards 
by  a  truce  for  six  years. 

During  all  this  time  Humbert  III  remained  immersed  in  his  private 
affairs \      Turin,  which  was  still  on  the  Emperor's  side  at  Venice  in 

1 1 77,  acknowledged  Humbert's  rights  in  November  11 76-;  and  there 
seem  to  have  been  obscure  local  wars  in  process;  for  in  11 76  the 
Emperor  had  destroyed  the  castle  of  Ulric  di  Rivalta,  and  Humbert  IH 
thereupon  took  possession,  perhaps  in  concert  with  the  Turinese^  Be- 
sides we  find  him  in  June  1180  at  war  with  Ivrea,  then  apparently  on 
the  imperial  side,  with  which  his  own  rebellious  vassal,  William  de  Bard, 
master  of  the  defiles  leading  to  Aosta,  is  in  league''. 

In  the  midst  of  his  disaster  Frederick  showed  an  unconquerable 
spirit.  If  his  rights  were  now  practically  narrowed  down  to  very  little 
in  Lombardy,  he  was  not  disposed  to  give  up  his  influence  either  there 
or  in  Burgundy.     Accordingly  we  find  him  at  Turin  in  June  and  July 

1 178,  about  to  march  into  Provence  before  returning  to  Germany.  It 
appears  that  Berthold  IV  of  Zahringen  brought  him  a  fresh  German 
escort  from  beyond  the  Alps.  The  Emperor  showed  the  importance, 
which  he  attached  to  this  western  route,  by  retaining  Annone  on  the 
route  from  Asti  in  his  own  hands*.  On  the  14th  July  he  reached 
Embrun,  having  evidently  crossed  the  Mont  Genevre,  and  then  pro- 
ceeded to  Aries  for  his  coronation  as  King  of  Burgundy  on  the  3rd  of 
August.  The  ceremony,  which  had  not  taken  place  for  nearly  a  century 
and  a  half  at  all  and  never  before  at  Aries,  was  attended  by  many 
feudatories.  Others  came  to  the  Emperor's  presence  during  his  journey 
up  the  Rhone  in  August  and  September.  The  Bishops  were  much 
to  the  fore,  yet  there  is  a  notable  absence  of  some  of  the  greater 
vassals.     The  Aragonese  Count  of  Provence  was  probably  anxious  not 

1  But  Bishop  Peter  of  Maurienne  represented  him  at  the  Peace  of  Venice  (see 
Hellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  61). 

^  See  above,  p.  336. 

■^  See  above,  pp.  287  and  318.  The  notices  of  the  lost  document  which  should 
tell  us  of  the  event  are  given  in  Carte  del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  HI.  2,  p.  238. 
I  imagine  the  Signori  di  Rivalta  revolted  from  Savoy  in  1149  and  thenceforward 
remained  in  alliance  with  the  Bishop.  In  11 70  the  Alexandrine  Milo  became  Bishop, 
and  in  consequence,  Ulric  found  the  Frederician  commune  of  Turin  hostile  to  him. 
See  below,  p.  349. 

*  Car.  Reg.  CCCLXXIII.  [Carte... vescovili  d'lvrea,  B.S.S.S.  VI.  p.  276).  Prof. 
Gabotto  (l/n  niillennio  di  storia  eporadiese,  B.S.S.S.  iv.  pp.  53-4)  first  pointed  out 
the  true  date  and  bearing  of  the  document. 

'  Sella,  Cod.  Ast.  Malabayla,  11.  651;  see  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  68.  And 
cf.  below,  p.   364. 


Humbert   Ill's  fourth  marriage  345 

to  do  homage,  but  the  non-appearance  of  Taillefer  of  the  Dauphine 
and  Humbert  III  was  more  likely  due  to  a  dislike  of  increasing  the 
Emperor's  prestige  in  his  Burgundian  kingdom  by  an  attendance  which 
would  profit  them  nothing.  They  may,  too,  have  met  him  as  he  passed 
through  their  lands \ 

Humbert  HI  was  certainly  not  thinking  of  running  counter  to  the 
Emperor  at  this  time,  for  dementia  of  Zahringen,  and  his  eldest 
daughter  being  dead,  he  married  about  1177  his  fourth  wife,  Beatrice, 
daughter  of  Count  Gerard  of  Macon,  the  strongest  imperialist  of  Bur- 
gundy^. By  her  he  had  about  11 78  his  only  son,  Thomas,  who  was  to 
restore  the  fortunes  of  his  House.  The  birth  was  foretold  in  a  curious 
way  by  St  Anthelm  of  Belley.  The  stubborn  saint  lay  on  his  deathbed 
in  June  1178,  firmly  refusing  to  forgive  the  Count  for  his  regalian  claims 
and  the  priest's  death'*,  unless  he  surrendered  the  former  and  professed 
penitence  for  the  latter.  No  one  liked  to  approach  Humbert  with  such 
demands ;  but  two  Carthusians  were  found  to  dare  it.  Going  at  once 
to  him,  for  he  was  in  the  place,  they  urged  him  to  repent  and  obtain 
the  dying  Bishop's  blessing.  Much  moved,  he  went  to  the  bedside  in 
tears  and  surrendered  and  promised  all  required  of  him.     Then  St 

1  See  Fournier,  op.  cit.  pp.  61-5 ;  the  Emperor  is  traceable  at  Turin,  Brian90n  and 
Gap  on  his  way  to  Aries.     Stumpf,  4248-56. 

2  See  Savio,  I primi  conti,  pp.  526-7  and  531-2.  The  fact  of  the  marriage  is 
best  proved  by:  (a)  Alb.  Trium  Fontium  {M.G.H.  Script.  XXIII.  p.  863)  "(Count 
Gerard  of  Macon)  genuit  comitem  Guillelmum...et  Galterum...et  sorores  eorum,  de 
quarum  una  natus  est  Thomas  de  Sabaudia";  (b)  Anon.  Laudun.  [M.G.H.  Script. 
XXVI. 447)  "(Humbert  III)  filiam  comitis  Gerardi  de  Mascons  accepit  uxorem  de  qua 
genuit  Tomam  qui  ei  in  comitatu  successit";  and  (c)  Vi.  S.  Anthelmi  (AA.  SS. 
Junii  V.  p.  111).  In  June  1178  "Comes  Humbertus  (III)  et  socer  eius  Girardus 
Viennensis"  are  at  Belley.  The  new  countess'  name  is  shown  in  Car.  Reg.  CCCLXXII. 
(Billiet  et  Albrieux,  Chartes  de  Matirienne  [Doc.  Acad.  Savoie,  li.],  p.  38).  The  date 
of  marriage  is  shown  by  the  story  of  St  Anthelm's  death,  26  June,  1178  (see  below), 
which  also  proves  that  Humbert's  eldest  daughter  was  already  dead  (AA.  SS.  Junii  v. 
p.  236)  "(Humbertus)  filiam  habebat  unicam."  M.  Philipon,  Origines . . .de  Belley, 
p.  94,  has  called  the  exact  date  of  St  Anthelm's  death  in  question  on  the  ground  of  a 
charter,  where  he  appears,  dated  23  August,  1178,  Luna  xi.,  Epact  IV.,  feria  v.  But 
Thursday  and  the  eleventh  day  of  the  moon  both  fell  on  the  23rd  August  in  1173,  not 
in  1 178;  and  the  Epact  iv.  of  the  Cartulary  is  nearer  to  the  Epact  v.  of  1173  than  to 
the  Epact  XI.  of  11 78.  Thus  the  charter  in  question  (LuUin  et  Lefort,  Reg.  Gen. 
No.  407;  M.H.P.  Chart,  i.  1066)  must  really  be  dated  1173.  There  is,  it  is  true,  a 
difficulty  the  other  way;  Thomas  was  of  age  by  7  August,  1191  (see  below,  p.  435). 
The  usual  age  for  majority  in  the  south  was  14.  Thus  Thomas  should  have  been  bom 
before  7  August,  1177.  But  the  date  of  St  Anthelm's  death  seems  secure.  He  was 
consecrated  Bishop  by  Alexander  III  then  in  France  on  8  September,  being  a  Sunday, 
i.e.  in  1163  (AA.  SS.  Junii  V.  p.  233).  He  died  26  June  in  the  fifteenth  year  of 
his  episcopate,  i.e.  after  8  September,  1177  (id.  p.  236).  It  would  be  easy  to  cut  the 
knot  by  reading  quartodecimo  for  quintodecimo  in  Anthelm's  life. 

^  See  above, -pp.  330-1. 


346  Humbert   III  as  an  imperial  partizan 

Anthelm  blessed  him  and  his  son.  When  some  officious  bystanders 
pointed  out  that  Humbert  had  an  only  daughter  and  no  son,  Anthelm 
only  repeated  the  word  son  with  added  emphasis.  Not  long  after,  adds 
the  contemporary  biographer,  Thomas  was  born.  One  regrets  to  add 
that  on  the  Bishop's  death  Count  Humbert  at  once  seized  on  the 
episcopal  palace  in  pursuance  of  his  right  to  the  spolia,  and  had  to  be 
frightened  off  by  a  rather  obvious  miracle  ^ 

Another  Bishop,  with  whom  Count  Humbert  had  a  dispute  over  his 
suzerain  rights,  was  Cono  of  Sion.  Here  no  doubt  after  the  treaty  with 
Barbarossa  in  11 68  the  Count  stood  on  firm  ground,  but  there  were  the 
accustomed  disputes  between  the  unwilling  protege  and  his  advocate, 
and  Humbert  had  as  usual  usurped  some  episcopal  lands.  However  in 
1 1 79  an  agreement  was  come  to  by  means  of  Archbishop  Aymon  of 
Tarentaise.  Each  party  was  to  help  the  other  on  equal  terms.  Neither 
should  deprive  the  other  of  his  liegemen.  The  territory  of  both  should 
be  the  same  as  it  was  in  1147^.  The  right  to  invest  each  new  bishop 
with  the  regalia  remained  \A\\\  the  Count,  but  he  rather  had  a  hold 
over  the  Bishop  than  any  definite  powers^. 

Section  III.    Humbert  Ill's  last  years  and  death. 

So  long  as  a  possibility  of  war  with  the  Lombard  communes 
remained,  Humbert  IH  enjoyed  a  kind  of  favour  from  the  Emperor. 
In  the  preliminaries  at  Piacenza  in  April  1183,  he  was  named  as  one  of 
the  jurors  on  the  imperial  side^  But  when  the  Peace  of  Constance 
was  proclaimed  on  the  25th  of  June,  and  Emperor  and  Communes  were 
fully  reconciled,  the  unlucky  Count  entered  on  evil  days,  for  Frederick 
took  up  again  his  plan  of  a  series  of  smaller  states  intermixed  with 
imperial  castles  in  Piedmont,  for  the  routes  leading  to  the  Great  St 
Bernard.     When  the  Emperor  reentered  Italy  in  August  1184,  and  was 

^  Vi.  S.  Anthebni  (AA.  SS.  Junii  v.  p.  236),  "  Impositisque  ei  manibus  vir  Dei 
benedicens  eum  ait  'Deus  omnipotens...benedictionis  suae  et  gratiae  tibi  tribuat  largi- 
tatem,  crescere  te  et  multiplicari  facial  et  filium  tuum.'  Et  tamen  filiam  habebat 
unicam,  non  filium ;  cumque  suggereretur  ei,  ut  filiam,  non  filium  nominaret,  eum 
errare  putantes,  iterum  et  tertio  signanter  repetivit :  'Et  filium  tuum.'  Quam 
prophetiam,  nato  sibi  filio  non  multo  post  tempore,  novimus  adimpletam,  nato  sibi 
filio,  ut  diximus,  scilicet  Thoma."  After  the  miracle  at  the  funeral,  " Comes... tanta 
mirabilia  cum  vidisset,  tremefactus,  episcopi  domum,  quam  jam  ingressus  cum  his 
qui  intus  erant  sibi  vendicaverat,  statim  abscedens  reliquit"  {loc.  cit.  xxxviii.). 

^  Car.  Reg.  CCCLVii.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  79).  "Item  comes  reddidit 
ecclesie  Sedunensi  omnem  terram  illam  et  homines  quos  ecclesia  Sedunensis  posside- 
bat  anno  quo  Amedeus  pater  ejus  Iherosolimam  profectus  est,  et  episcopus  comiti  e 
con  verso." 

^  See  below,  pp.  398-9  and  425. 

*  Car.  Reg.  cccLix.,  cccLxi.  (identical),  {M.G.H.  Const,  i.  403). 


The  Bishop  of  Turin  proceeds  against  Humbert  III    347 

received  with  pompous  loyalty  by  the  Lombard  cities,  the  storm  was  to 
burst  on  Humbert's  head. 

The  immediate  instrument  of  the  attack  on  Humbert  was  Milo, 
Bishop  of  Turin.  That  prelate  who  had  never  been  schismatic  had 
succeeded  to  Bishop  Charles  about  1169,  and  had  some  considerable 
power  in  Turin  itself  during  his  early  episcopate.  In  February  11 70 
in  conjunction  with  the  Commune  of  Turin  we  find  him  receiving  the 
lordship  of  the  castle  of  Montossolo  from  its  three  possessors  and  there- 
upon enfeoffing  it  to  them,  on  condition  of  their  surrendering  it  at  his 
demand  either  to  himself  or  the  Commune  of  Turing  Later  in  1176, 
as  we  have  seen,  he  by  no  means  occupied  an  influential  position  in  his 
city^;  and  probably  his  quarrel  with  Count  Humbert  had  already 
begun,  with  which  state  of  affairs  the  destruction  of  Rivalta  Castle 
would  be  connected^.  In  1180  he  obtained  the  suzerainty  of  all 
Rivoli'*,  and  in  the  same  year  he  was  investing  some  signori  of  Alpi- 
gnano  with  half  the  castle  there  under  terms  which  point  to  a  state  of 
war  and  a  rival  claimant ^  Finally  in  the  actual  fighting  it  seems  that 
damage  was  done  to  the  Bishop's  lands  at  Rivoli  and  Piobesi".  Hum- 
bert was  a  vassal  of  the  Church  of  Turin,  which  complicated  matters, 
since  even  a  defensive  war  involved  breach  of  feudal  duty. 

Milo  began  his  proceedings  quite  early,  for  on  the  nth  of  March 
1 1 84  we  find  Godfrey,  the  imperial  chancellor  and  legate  for  Italy, 
holding  a  court  at  Milan  to  decide  on  the  Bishop's  demand  for  the 
restitution  of  Pianezza  of  which  it  seems  the  Count  was  then  in  posses- 
sion. Humbert  thought  it  best  to  take  no  notice  of  the  proceedings 
and  in  consequence  Pianezza  was  in  his  contumacy  assigned  to  the 
Bishop.  As  Humbert  could  reacquire  possession  if  he  appeared  before 
the  court  within  a  year,  it  seems  that  he  must  have  had  claims  to  hold 
the  place  as  a  fief  from  the  Bishop,  whose  property  it  was^ 

'   Carte... arcivescffvili  di  Torino,  B.S.S.S.  xxxvi.  p.  47. 

-  See  above,  p.  336.  ^  See  above,  p.  344. 

^  Carte  del  Finerolese,  B.S.S.S.  Hi.  2,  pp.  233  and  237. 

^  Carte... arcivescovili  di  Torino,  B.S.S.S.  xxxvi.  p.  69,  "Si...Anselmus  et  Oto 
et  eorum  heredes  aquistasent  {sic)  ulliim  feudum  vel  ullam  concessionem  in... loco 
Alpiniano  quod  pertinet  ad  ecclesiam  Taurinen.sem  ad  racionem  debent  aquistare  salvo 
jure  ecclesie.  Si  (predicti)  per  ullum  tempus  perdiderint...castnim...episcopus  etc. 
debent  eos  adjuvare  ad  recuperandum  sicut  boni  domini  bonis  vasalis." 

*  Car.  Reg.  CCCLXill.  {Carte... arcivescovili  di  Torino,  B.S.S.S.  xxxvi.  p.  79). 
The  Bishop  claimed  in  1185,  700  pounds  of  Susa  "pro  dampno  dato  sibi  tarn  in 
Ripolis  quam  in  Publice."     See  below,  p.  348. 

■^  Car.  Reg.  cccLXiv.  {Carte .. .arcivescovili  di  Torino,  p.  77),  "pro  querimonia 
quam  faciebat...Milo  Taurinensis  epi.scopus  de  eo,  viz.  quod  injuste  teneret  ei  castrum 
ct  villam  de  Planicia,  que  dicebat  juris  esse  Taurinensis  ecclesie... ita  siquidem  ut  si 
comes  venerit  justiciam  facere  et  satisfare  et  impensas  episcopo  restituere  paratus  infra 
annum  possessionem  hanc  recuperet  predictus  comes." 


34^  Humbert  Ill's  last  years  and  death 

It  is  not  likely  that  Humbert  obeyed  this  order  ;  for,  when  Frederick 
was  residing  in  Pavia  in  April  1185',  the  Bishop  began  another  action. 
He  accused  the  Count  of  breaking  the  feudal  tie,  which  bound  him  to 
the  Church  of  Turin,  and  demanded  on  this  account  that  he  should  be 
deprived  of  the  fiefs  he  held  from  the  episcopium,  i.e.  from  the  episcopal 
domain.  As  such  Milo  specified  Avigliana  Castle,  Rivalta,  the  half  of 
Carignano,  Torretta  Castle,  and  his  possessions  in  the  city  of  Turin. 
He  further  claimed  damages  for  losses  suffered  in  the  war".  A  delay 
was  thereupon  granted  to  Humbert,  since  he  was  occupied  in  a 
pilgrimage  to  St  Mark's  at  Venice  I  When  he  returned  in  May  1185, 
he  found  Frederick  occupied  in  the  rebuilding  of  Crema,  and  then 
obtained  a  further  respite  till  the  Emperor  should  be  in  Turin*.  As 
soon  as  the  respite  was  granted,  Humbert  took  his  leave  and  retreated 
to  the  safe  mountains  of  Savoy  to  await  developments.  By  and  by  in 
June  he  was  summoned  to  the  court  at  Turin,  but  did  not  appear. 
A  second  special  summons,  in  which  the  Emperor's  kinsman,  Dietrich, 
the  Carthusian,  took  part,  had  no  effect.  So  at  last  the  Chancellor 
Godfrey  sent  a  third  and  last  summons,  and,  when  the  Count  appeared 
neither  in  person  nor  by  envoys,  proceeded  to  judgement  against  him  in 
contumacy^  On  the  2nd  of  September,  being  still  at  Turin,  Godfrey 
declared  the  Count  to  be  deprived  of  the  fiefs  he  held  from  the  Church 
of  Turin,  that  is  of  Avigliana  and  Torretta  Castles,  of  his  possessions  in 
Turin  and  of  Rivalta  as  well  as  others.  Further,  in  satisfaction  of  the 
claim  for  damages  he  handed  over  to  the  Bishop  other  lands  of  the 
Count  which  were  not  held  of  the  Church  of  Turin **.     Next    month 


^  For  the  dates  see  Stumpf,  4416,  4418,  4419,  4420-2. 

^  Car.  Reg.  CCCLXlii.  (see  p.  347,  n.  6).  "Petebat...episcopus  ab  eo  castnim  de 
Avilliana  cum  omnibus  suis  pertinenciis,  et  Ripaltam  et  medietatem  Cargnani  et 
castrum  quod  dicitur  de  Turreta  et  quicquid  possidet  in  civitate  Taurini  et  in  ejus 
territorio  et  DCC.  libras  Secusinorum  fortium  pro  dampno  dato  sibi  tarn  in  Ripolis 
quam  in  Publice,  et  generaliter  ut  dimitat  sibi  omne  feodum  quod  ab  ecclesia 
Taurinensi  tenet,  asserens  se  probaturum  comitem  commississe  offensas  adversus 
ecclesiam  Taurinensem  propter  quas  feodum  jure  amitere  debebat." 

*  Loc.  cit.,  "  induciis  datis  secundum  voluntatem  ipsius  comitis,  silicet  cum 
reversus  esset  ab  ecclesia  S.  Marci  que  est  Veneciis  ad  quam  profficiscebatur  orationis 
causa."     The  25th  of  April  is  St  Mark's  day. 

*  Loc.  cit.,  "  Cum  redisset  ad  imperatorem  dum  esset  apud  Cremam  pro  reedifica- 
tione  ejus,  posito  termino  cum  imperator  esset  Taurini.  Iterum  post  recessum 
ipsius  comitis,  etc." 

^  Loc.  cit. 

®  Loc.  cit.,  "episcopum  in  possessionem... castrorum,  scilicet  Avilliana  et  Turrete 
...et  ejus  quod  ab  eo  tenet  in  Taurine  et  ejus  territorio  et  universaliter  de  toto  feudo 
quod  comes... ab  ecclesia  Taurinensi  tenet  sive  in  rebus  sive  in  jure  consistant,  et 
nominatim  de  eo  jure  quod  habet  in  Ripalta  in  possessionem  mittc.Pro  DCC. ..libras... 
pono  eum  in  possessionem  aliarum  rerum  comitis  que  non  sunt  de  beneficio  episcopi 


War  with  the  Bishop  of  Turin  349 

Ulric  di  Rivalta,  the  sub-tenant  of  Rivalta  Castle  who  had  been 
deprived  in  11 76,  was  restored  formally  to  his  possessions  on  giving 
hostages  for  his  loyalty  ^ 

So  far  so  good  from  the  imperial  point  of  view.  The  decision  of 
the  court  of  course  does  not  show  precisely  what  Humbert  really  held 
in  fief  of  the  Bishop,  for  his  defence  was  never  handed  in,  and  all 
Milo's  claims  were  taken  for  true ;  but  undoubtedly  there  was  homage 
owing  for  some  lands,  e.g.  Carignano,  Still  the  Count  was  not  likely 
to  give  way,  and  private  war  was  really  authorized  on  Milo's  part,  and 
was  soon  to  be  supported  by  the  Emperor. 

Meanwhile  some  parts  of  the  settlement  in  Piedmont  were  easy. 
Turin,  according  to  the  diploma  of  1159  and  the  Peace  of  Constance, 
took  its  place  among  those  Communes,  where  the  Consuls  were  invested, 
though  not  elected,  by  the  Bishop.  The  exercise  of  any  rights  there 
by  the  House  of  Savoy  was  prevented  for  many  years.  Ivrea  and 
Chieri  appear  under  an  imperial  podesta  at  this  time"^.  With  regard  to 
the  contado  of  Turin  a  small  local  war  seems  to  have  been  begun. 
Bishop  Milo  and  the  Turinese  captured  CoUegno  and  destroyed  the 
Count's  castle  there^;  while  on  the  28th  October  1186  Markward,  the 
seneschal  of  Frederick's  son,  Henry  VI,  could  put  Bishop  Milo  in 
actual  possession  of  Rivalta  Castle,  with  a  reserve  of  Ulric  di  Rivalta's 
rights^ 

It  was  largely  with  a  view  to  Henry  VI's  future  greatness  that  all 
this  Piedmontese  policy  of  Frederick  took  shape.  In  January  11 86  he 
was  married  to  Constance,  the  heiress  of  the  kingdom  of  Sicily,  and, 
with  this  new  base  of  Hohenstaufen  power  acquired  in  Italy,  it  became 

usque  ad  predictam  quan'itatem."  If  Carignano  has  not  slipped  out  of  the  text,  it 
must  be  included  in  the  general  clause,  for  it  is  one  of  those  curtes  which  certainly 
was  held  of  the  Bishop.     See  above,  p.  287,  n.  2. 

The  greatest  landowners  of  Carignano,  however,  at  this  time  were  the  Marquesses 
of  Romagnano.  Probably  they  held  the  other  half,  for  they  did  not,  it  seems,  owe 
albergariae  to  the  Bishop  {Carie  del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  in.  2,  pp.  203,  265,  267, 
268).  Cf.  Carte  arcivesc.  di  Torino,  B.S.S.S.  x.xxvi.  p.  112.  The  Ardoinid  owner- 
ship, which  the  Romagnano  continued,  is  traceable  in  the  eleventh  century.  Cf. 
above,  p.   158,  and  Car.  Reg.  LXiv.   (M.G.H.  Dipl.   iv.  p.  83). 

^  Carte  del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  ill.  2,  p.  238.     Cf.  above,  pp.  287,  n.  2,  and  344. 

'^  See  Gabotto,  Un  inillennio  di  storia  eporediese,  B.S.S.S.  iv.  p.  58. 

^  For  CoUegno  cf.  above,  p.  287,  n.  3.  This  time  is  the  most  probable  for  the 
event,  as  it  would  facilitate  the  possession  of  Rivalta;  and  King  Henry's  aid  is  not 
mentioned.  For  another  date  (1199),  which  seems  to  me  less  likely,  see  Hellmann, 
o/>.  cit.  p.  80,  n.  4.  Peace  was  made  with  the  defeated  lords  of  Rivoli  by  Bishop 
Ardoin  of  Turin  on  7  Aug.  1190  (Carte  del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  III.  2,  p.  245). 

■*  Car.  Peg.  CCCLXVi.  [Carte... arc ivescovili  di  Torino,  B.S.S.S.  xxxvi.  p.  84). 
To  this  event,  probably  we  should  attribute  the  destruction  of  Rivalta  by  "King 
Henry"  placed  by  a  late  chronicler  in  1195  (Chron.  Parv.  Kipaltae,  PP.  II.  SS., 
new  ed.,  p.  6). 


350  Humbert   Ill's  last  years  and  death 

all  the  more  necessary  to  assure  the  transalpine  routes.  Frederick  had 
no  notion  of  renewing  the  early  Salian  policy  and  of  encouraging  a 
great  allied  Alpine  feudatory.  He  preferred  small  states  ruled  when 
possible  by  imperial  nominees  and  interspersed  with  imperial  castles. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  in  this  connection  that  Frederick  proceeded 
in  exactly  the  same  fashion  against  his  other  friend  of  1168,  William 
Count  of  the  Genevois^  who  was  engaged  in  interminable  disputes 
with  his  suzerain,  the  Bishop  of  Geneva.  In  March  11 86  the  fiefs 
which  the  Count  held  of  the  Bishop,  that  is  most  of  his  county,  were 
declared  escheated  to  that  prelate,  and  the  recalcitrant  William  was  put 
under  the  ban  of  the  Empire  ^  Frederick  was  indeed  a  political  being, 
like  Napoleon,  and  did  not  let  ties  of  gratitude  interfere  with  state  policy. 

The  year-worn  Emperor  was  now  about  to  quit  Italy  for  the  last 
time,  leaving  his  son,  Henry  VI,  in  charge  of  affairs  in  that  kingdom. 
Before  he  went,  he  devised  another  assault  on  the  rights  of  the  obstinate 
Count  of  Savoy.  On  the  loth  of  May  he  granted  a  diploma  to  Aymon, 
Archbishop  of  Tarentaise,  which  must  have  been  very  grievous  to 
Humbert.  Not  only  were  the  regalia  conceded  to  the  Archbishop,  but 
the  Emperor  himself  performed  the  investiture  with  the  sceptre,  thus 
shutting  out  the  Count  of  Savoy  entirely  from  the  Archbishop's  fiefs 
and  making  the  latter  an  immediate  vassal  of  the  Empire^ 

Worse  followed  next  year  at  the  hands  of  Henry  VI.  After  elaborate 
legal  summonses  to  answer  for  his  contumacy  and  attack  on  the  Bishop 
of  Turin,  Humbert  was  declared  an  open  enemy  of  the  Empire,  all 
his  alods  and  fiefs  were  declared  forfeited,  and  himself  put  under  the 
imperial  ban*. 

^  See  above,  p.  334.     William  had  been  brother-in-law  of  Humbert  III. 

''■  See  LuUin  et  Lefort,  Rigeste  Genevois  (M.D.G.),  Nos.  437  and  438. 

^  Besson,  Mhtioires,  ed.  1871,  p.  360.  "Quem  de  regalibus  Tarentasiani  archi- 
episcopatus  per  imperiale  sceptrum  investivimus...Concedimus...archiepiscopo  et 
ecclesiae  ut...bona...sive  per  violentiam  aliquorum  eis  ablata,  sive  per  dispendium  re- 
troacti  temporis  omissione  involuta...in  primam  liberae  facultatis  tutelam  recuperare." 
Perhaps  the  power  granted  the  Archbishop  of  recovering  lost  fiefs  or  fiefs,  which  the 
vassals  in  possession  pretended  not  to  be  fiefs,  is  directed  against  Humbert  Hi's 
possession  of  the  countship  of  Tarentaise.     See  also  below,  p.  426,  n.  7. 

*  Car.  Reg.  CCCLXVii.  {M.D.R.  xxix.  p.  122).  The  source  is  a  diploma  of 
Henry  VI  to  the  Bishop  of  Sion.  "Quod  cum  Humbertus  q.  Sabaudie  comes,  mani- 
festus  hostis  imperii,  propter  suorum  multitudinem  excessuum,  et  precipue  quod 
allodia  et  bona  episcopo  et  episcopio  ecclesie  S.  Johannis  in  Taurino  ex  antiqua 
fidelium  donacione  coUata  violenter  abstulerat,  et  ad  frequentem...Friderici...impera- 
toris...amonicionem  et  nostram  incorrigibilis  et  contumax  extiterat,  tandem  plurimis 
edictis  et  eciam  peremptoriis  citatus  contumaciter  absens  venire  contempsit,  nos 
universa  allodia  et  feoda  que  ipse  infra  fines  Romani  imperii  possidebat,  observato 
omnimode  ordine  judiciario,  ei  per  justam  principum  imperii  sentenciam  et  parium 
suorum,  abjudicavimus  et  eum  secundum  justiciam  condempnatum  perpetuo  imperii 
banno  subicimus.     In  qua  condempnacione  diem  clausit  extremum." 


Humbert  III  under  the  ban  of  the  Empire     351 

In  October  1187  King  Henry  collected  an  army,  and  proceeded 
against  the  rebel.  Avigliana  was  the  object  of  his  attack.  After  fifteen 
days'  siege  it  was  taken  and  destroyed  \  Perhaps  the  King's  purpose 
did  not  go  beyond  the  execution  of  the  sentence  delivered  on  the 
Turinese  controversy.  At  any  rate  he  attempted  nothing  further  in  Italy, 
leaving  even  Miradolo  untouched.  But  next  July  we  find  him  making  a 
brief  inroad  in  Bugey,  probably  to  hasten  the  Count's  submission,  and 
with  this  event  the  long  and  inglorious  history  of  Humbert  III  closes^. 
He  died  on  the  4th  of  March  11 89,  leaving  his  heir  still  a  minor^. 

Little  can  be  said  of  the  retiring  figure  of  Humbert  III.  The 
general  impression  he  gives  is  one  of  incompetence.  He  was  certainly 
unlucky.  One  may  guess  that  he  was  a  man  who  was  persistent,  if 
unwise ;  and  the  losses  his  House  suffered  during  his  rule  might 
obviously  have  been  more  serious  than  they  were.  To  his  religious 
instincts  we  may  attribute  the  foundation  of  the  Chartreuse  of  Aillon 
in  Savoy  proper^,  and  part  of  his  patronage  of  the  useful  hospital  of 
S.  Antonio  di  Ranverso  on  the  Turin  road^  His  beatification  after 
nearly  seven  hundred  years  is  merely  an  instance  of  the  strange  twists 
of  destiny®. 

1  Ann.  Plac.  Gib.  {M.G.H.  Script,  xviii.  466).  "1187  mense  Octubris  predictus 
rex  in  Lombardiam  reversus,  magno  exercitu  undique  collecto  supra  terras  comitis 
Savolie  properavit  et  castellum  quod  dicitur  Vilianum  cepit  et  destruxit  "  (Coda- 
gnelli,  Ann.  Plac.  Guelf.  (ed.  Holder- Egger,  Script.  Rer.  Gertn.  p.  15).  "1186 
Sequenti  vero  mense  (Oct.)  predictus... Anricus  in  Lonbardiam  reversus,  magno 
exercitu  undique  collecto,  cum  aliquibus  militibus  Placentie  et  cum  LX.  sagittariis 
supra  comitem  Savegne  ivit,  et  primo  perexit  ad  quoddam  castrum  quod  appellatur 
Vellianum,  et  fecit  ibi  fieri  manganos  et  predarias,  et  stetit  circa  illud  per  xv.  dies,  et 
cepit  et  destruxit."  The  course  of  events  and  the  geography  seem  safely  to  identify 
Vilianum  with  Avigliana  and  not  the  insignificant  Viliano.  For  the  year  see  Henry's 
movements  in  Stumpf,  4621-6. 

*  Cf.  for  the  whole  story  of  the  quarrel  with  Frederick,  Gabotto,  VAbazia  e  il 
Comune  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  i.  123-8,  and  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  pp.  63-71, 

Oehlmann,  Alpenpcisse,  III.  p.  223,  thinks  Henry  VI  crossed  the  Alps  by  the 
Mont  Cenis  in  1087-8;  but  his  last  Italian  diploma  is  from  Lodi  (Stumpf,  No.  4626) ; 
and  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  his  taking  the  Septimer  route. 

On  20-1  July  Henry  was  at  Lyons,  on  the  23rd  at  Thezillieu  near  Virieu-le-grand, 
and  on  the  27th  near  Ambronay.  I  feel  a  little  doubtful  whether  Theyssonacum  is 
Thezillieu ;  for  the  latter  is  in  pago  Bellicensi  not  z«  pago  Ltigdunensi.  In  any  case 
the  stay  at  Ambronay  and  the  charter  to  the  Sire  de  Thoire  are  significant.  See 
Stumpf,  Nos.  4629-32. 

3  See  the  obits  in  Car.  Reg.  CCCLXix.  (Billiet,  Chartes  de  Maurieiine,  Doc.  Acad. 
Savoie,  il.  p.  340),  "IV.  Non.  Mart,  anno  ab  incarn.  Domini  mclxxxix.  obiit 
dognus  Humbertus  inclitus  comes  Maur.  et  Marchio  Italie."  Cf.  Savio,  I  primi 
conti,  pp.  537-8.  ■*  Car.  Reg.  CCCXLII.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  43). 

'  Car.  Reg.  CCCLViii.  (Cibrario,  Operette  varie,  p.  429). 

*  It  was  granted  by  Pope  Gregory  XVI,  7  September,  1838.  Car.  Reg.  CCCLXix. 
King  Charles  Albert,  I  imagine,  was  the  motive-power  in  this  tardy  proceeding. 


352  Humbert  Ills  last  years  and  death 

His  four  marriages  have  been  dealt  with  as  they  occurred.  Of  his 
first  and  second  wives,  Faidiva  and  Gertrude  of  Flanders,  no  children 
are  recorded'.  By  Clementia  of  Zahringen  he  had  two  daughters. 
AHce  the  elder  we  have  seen  died  in  childhood^.  The  younger,  whose 
name  was  perhaps  Sophia",  married,  as  his  second  wife,  Azzo  VI  Marquess 
of  Este.  She  was  dead  by  1204  when  Azzo  married  again ^  Finally 
by  Beatrice  of  Macon  or  Vienne  Humbert  became  the  father  of  Thomas, 
who  was  to  restore  the  House  of  Savoy  to  its  earlier  preeminence. 

When  we  trace  the  main  results  of  Humbert's  rule,  we  find  little 
overt  changes  to  record.  Save  the  loss  of  some  rights  over  the  bishop- 
rics of  Tarentaise,  Belley  and  Sion,  the  extent  of  his  territory  appears 
to  remain  unaltered,  for  the  loss  of  Turin  merely  counterbalanced  its 
acquisition  a  few  years  before.  More  important  was  the  increased 
intervention  of  the  Emperor  in  Burgundian  affairs,  but  this  implied 
more  the  enlargement  of  the  sphere  of  the  Count's  foreign  policy,  than 
any  contraction  of  his  independence  in  matters  of  internal  government. 
But  it  was  the  movements  below  the  surface  of  events,  and  only  to  be 
guessed  at  from  our  fragmentary  material,  which  were  most  enduring  in 
their  results.  The  wide  monastic  foundations  of  the  first  half  of  the 
twelfth  century  were  beginning  to  bear  fruit  in  the  increased  prosperity 
and  larger  population  of  the  Savoyard  valleys ;  and  the  general  progress 
of  European  commerce  was  affecting  the  little  towns  on  the  high  roads. 
We  may  suspect  that,  unlike  his  father,  Humbert  was  not  greatly  alive 
to  the  inevitable  future.  At  any  rate  there  are  signs  that  there  was  a 
tension  existing  between  him  and  the  growing  merchant  class',  and 
under  Count  Thomas  the  age  of  town-charters  begins  in  earnest.  In 
short  the  time  just  elapsed  was  one  of  silent  preparation,  in  which 
perhaps  the  unheroic  Count  played  his  part. 

^  See  above,  pp.  318-19. 
^  See  above,  pp.   339-41  and  345,  n.  2. 

^  Savio,  I  primi  conti,  pp.  534-6.  There  does  not  seem  to  be  any  ancient 
authority  given  for  her  name.  She  is  also  called  Eleonora  (Muratori,  Antichith 
Estensi,   I.  404-7). 

*  Savio,  loc.  cit.  Her  parentage  is  shown  by  the  epitaph  of  her  daughter, 
Beatrice  (Muratori,  Antichita  Estensi,   i.    406). 

"  Hoc  jacet  in  tumulo  pia  nomine  virgo  Beatrix, 
Quae  fuit  ex  animo  divinae  legis  amatrix, 
Marchio  quam  genuit  Estensis  et  Azo  vocatus, 
Conjuge  patre  sata  Sabaudia  cui  comitatus." 
It  is  impossible  that  Count  Thomas  should  be  Sophia's  father  owing  to  the  dates. 
^  See  below,  pp.  359-60.     It  is  significant  that  no  town-charters  were  granted  by 
Humbert  III. 


CHAPTER   V 

COUNT   THOMAS 

Section  I.    The  Burgundian  phase. 

The  biography  of  the  earlier  Counts  of  Savoy  is  condemned  by  the 
nature  of  our  material  to  be  brief  and  tedious.  It  is  not  that  the 
times  were  uneventful  or  flat  and  commonplace.  They  were  epic  in 
their  aspirations  and  actual  achievement.  Then  it  was  that  the  youthful 
nations  of  Europe  began  their  intellectual  journey  from  the  dream- 
world of  their  imagination  to  the  realm  of  fact  and  daylight  knowledge. 
The  attempt  to  realize  the  legend  of  the  Roman  Empire  and  the 
speculation  of  the  Roman  Church,  or  that  to  make  the  ideal  of  knight- 
hood, compounded  by  the  poetic  fancy  from  the  strangest  elements  of 
barbarism  and  Christianity,  into  the  standard  of  prosaic  life,  both 
afforded  the  mind  a  perpetual  exercise  and  training  in  its  faculties. 
A  tradition  was  slowly  formed  on  the  nature  and  structure  of  society, 
the  duties  and  sanction  of  government,  the  limits  of  princely  and 
sacerdotal  power,  the  methods  of  policy  and  the  principles  of  the  law, 
not  to  mention  those  more  translunary  things,  the  purpose  of  the  world 
and  the  destinies  of  mankind.  And  amid  this  stately  forest  of  systematic 
thought,  there  flourished  and  spread  the  undergrowth  of  fantastic 
romance,  made  for  diversion  and  governing  to  this  day  our  notions 
of  what  imaginative  literature  must  be.  Nor  apart  from  these  world- 
wide problems,  was  the  humdrum  local  life  of  the  age  devoid  of  an 
heroic  aspect.  Count,  baron  and  serf  were  building,  partly  unconsciously, 
partly  consciously,  an  orderly  fabric  of  customary  life  out  of  the  practical 
conditions  of  their  existence.  Decayed  and  obsolete  institutions 
withered  away  or  were  transformed,  and  new  more  efficient  forms  took 
their  place.  The  waste  and  woodland  were  gradually  transmuted  into 
ploughed  fields.  The  great  high-roads  became  populous  with  merchants 
and  travellers.  Misery,  anarchy  and  injustice  in  life,  puerility,  confusion 
and  barbarism  in  thought,  there  were,  it  is  true,  in  plenty  and  excess. 

p.  o.  23 


354  The  Burgundian  phase 

But  barrenness  of  events  or  lack  of  dramatic  interest  there  could 
hardly  be. 

Yet  the  early  Humbertines  share  very  little  in  the  glamour  of  their 
time.  The  darkness,  which  blots  out  for  us  so  much  of  the  early 
Middle  Ages,  rests  with  peculiar  density  over  Savoy.  Without  a  chronicle, 
without  a  vernacular  literature,  we  are  reduced  for  our  knowledge  to  the 
occasional  notices  of  foreign  annalists  and  to  desiccated  charters  of 
native  production.  The  actors  in  the  history  flit  uncertainly  over  the 
scene,  impersonal  shadows  in  the  twilight.  The  account  of  their  motives 
and  actions  must  be  mainly  guesswork,  even  that  of  the  results  of  these 
is  dubious  and  contestable  to  a  high  degree.  Our  acquaintance  with 
the  last,  too,  is  curiously  embarrassed  by  the  wealth  of  slightly-relevant 
material.  Thus  when  a  satisfactory  description  of  Piedmont  in  the 
twelfth  century  is  at  last  written,  it  will  be  composed  from  a  careful 
analysis  of  many  hundreds  of  deeds  relating  to  land-transfer.  The 
immediate  rule  of  the  district  was  exercised  by  the  consorzerie  of  the 
lords  of  the  soil,  and  the  possessions,  and  varied  rights  of  these 
associations,  the  membership  of  which  was  not  mutually  exclusive,  lay 
involved  in  a  tangled  mass  over  the  champaign.  When  a  competent 
knowledge  of  the  details  has  been  obtained  from  a  prolonged  comparison 
of  ill-expressed  and  often  really  inconsistent  charters,  there  will  gradually 
emerge  some  light  on  the  extent  of  the  rights  and  claims  of  Emperor, 
Count  of  Savoy,  Bishop,  Abbot  and  City-Commune  over  these  minor 
lords.  And  it  must  be  remembered  that  such  rights  were  often  conflicting 
and  nearly  always  partial.  Clear-cut  frontiers  of  territorial  or  personal 
allegiance  are  hard  to  find.  A  welter  of  names  which  carry  with  them 
no  associations,  a  multitude  of  petty,  half-expressed  facts,  topographical, 
genealogical,  financial  and  administrative,  rise  in  a  dusty  eddy  from  the 
parchments  and  the  researcher  after  all  may  only  find  that  precise 
evidence  on  the  subject  of  his  quest  has  been  lost  or  was  always 
lacking'. 

With  Count  Thomas,  however,  the  mist  which  covers  the  early 
history  of  his  House  begins  to  clear  away.  The  cause  partly  is  that 
Savoy  now  enters  more  into  the  contemporary  politics  of  Italy  and 
north  Burgundy,  partly  that  the  progress  of  its  internal  development 


^  Considerable  researches  on  these  local  dynasts  may  be  found  in  Ct.  Baudi  di 
Vesme's  Le  origini  della  feudalith  nel  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  i.  and  in  Prof.  Patrucco's 
Le  famiglie  sigfiorili  di  Saluzzo  in  Studi  Saluzzesi,  B.S.S.S.  x.  Unfortunately  the 
line  of  research  in  both  these  works  is  not  topographical,  taking  place  by  place 
and  demonstrating  their  ownership,  but  genealogical,  with  the  object  of  proving 
the  interconnection  of  these  signorial  houses  in  the  male  line  and  their  common 
descent  from  three  or  four  prolific  patriarchs  in  the  tenth  century  for  which  the 
evidence,  although  suggestive  of  widely  branched  stocks,  seems  insufficient. 


The  regency  355 

makes  the  documents  less  arid  than  in  earUer  times.  So  now  we  find 
treaties  to  aid  us  in  reconstructing  Count  Thomas'  external  policy,  while 
the  first  recognitions  and  inquisitions,  as  well  as  town-charters,  cast  firesh 
light  on  his  subjects  and  his  government.  The  fresh  light  is  little 
more  than  a  glimmer,  but  it  is  welcome  after  the  gloom  of  preceding 
centuries. 

The  reign  of  Thomas  falls  into  three  rather  rough-edged  periods. 
In  the  first  (i  189-12 11)  which  is  dealt  with  in  this  section,  we  find 
Count  Thomas  most  profitably  occupied  in  Burgundian  affairs.  He 
restores  the  prestige  of  his  House;  he  begins  a  successful  forward 
movement  in  Vaud  and  Bugey,  which  his  successors  were  to  carry  to  the 
Saone  and  the  northern  Jura ;  he  commences  the  alliance  of  the  sovran- 
count  with  the  bourgeois-class  ;  he  only  makes  some  fortunate  tentatives 
in  Italy.  In  the  second  period  (1212-1219)  he  is  at  the  height  of  his 
power,  and  turns  his  eyes  principally  south  and  east;  he  seeks  for 
compromises  on  his  northern  frontier,  but  attempts  to  build  up  a 
dominion  in  Piedmont.  In  the  third  period  (12 19-1233)  his  power 
declines,  confronted  by  the  opposition  of  the  Italian  Communes ;  he 
loses  ground,  and  all  his  twists  and  turns,  which  are  many,  only  serve  to 
retain  a  small  portion  of  his  gains.  His  losses,  however,  are  of  little 
ultimate  importance  when  compared  with  the  lasting  increase  of  solid 
strength  he  had  acquired  north  of  the  Alps. 

At  the  time  of  his  father's  death  the  young  Count,  named  doubtless 
after  the  militant  St  Thomas  of  Canterbury,  could  not  have  been  more 
than  twelve  years  of  age,  and  was  possibly  only  eleven \  It  was  there- 
fore necessary  to  elect  a  guardian  as  soon  as  possible  to  perform  the 
duties  of  regent.  Nor  was  any  time  lost  by  the  widowed  Countess 
Beatrice  and  the  chief  nobles  of  Savoy  in  naming  a  tutor ;  for  within 
eight  days  of  Humbert  Ill's  death,  we  find  Boniface,  Marquess  of 
Montferrat,  evidently  fulfilling  the  duties  of  regent,  although  he  does 
not  yet  take  the  title-.  The  choice  could  hardly  have  been  bettered. 
Marquess  Boniface  was  a  chivalrous  crusader  of  the  fighting  House 
of  Montferrat.  Under  his  guidance  young  Thomas  would  be  trained 
to  become  a  gallant  knight  and  man  of  action  of  the  best  type  in 
Europe.     Unimpeachably  loyal  to  the  Emperor  and  bound  to  his  ward 

^  He  was  certainly  considered  of  full  age  on  7  August  1191,  but  perhaps  he  was 
declared  of  age  at  thirteen  for  reasons  now  unknown.     Cf.  above,  p.  345,  n.  2. 

■^  See  the  grant  to  the  Hospital  of  the  Great  St  Bernard  dated  16  March  1189 
(Car.  A'e^.  CCCLXX. ;  A/isc.  Valdostana,  B.S.S.S.  xvii.  p.  103),  which  has  "sigilli 
nostri  impressione  et  B.  matris  nostre  et  domini  Maurianensis  episcopi  L.  et  dilecti 
nostri  B.  marchionis  Montisferrati."  Among  the  witnesses  appear  the  Viscounts  of 
Tarentaise  (Brian^on),  Aiguebelle  (Miolans)  and  Maurienne  (La  Chambre),  as  well 
as  Humbert  Hi's  councillor  Ponce  de  Conflens,  the  chaplain  Bernard  and  the 
chancellor  Maurice. 

23—2 


35^  The  Burgundian  phase 

both  by  kinship,  old  friendship  and  interest S  he  was  the  very  man 
to  conduct  the  negotiations  for  the  reconciHation  with  King  Henry  VI, 
who  now  that  his  father  was  engaged  in  the  Third  Crusade  took  control 
of  affairs.  It  is  evident  that  the  course  to  be  pursued  had  been  settled 
before  Humbert's  death,  for  not  only  was  Boniface  on  the  spot,  but  also 
the  Carthusian  Dietrich,  that  mysterious  connection  of  the  Hohenstaufen^. 
From  Aiguebelle,  where  the  preliminaries  of  the  Count's  accession 
seem  to  have  been  performed,  Boniface  and  his  ward,  accompanied  by 
the  Bishops  of  Maurienne  and  Aosta,  soon  started  north  to  meet  the 
King  at  Basel.  There,  too,  they  found  Thomas'  maternal  uncle.  Count 
William  V  of  Macon,  at  the  court  of  his  imperial  kinsman,  and  the 
young  Count  was  formally  received  into  grace.  It  was  probably  then 
that,  to  mark  his  loyalty,  Thomas  abandoned  the  silver  cross  on  the 
shield  of  his  forefathers  for  the  sable  eagle  of  the  Empire,  which  he 
bore  for  the  rest  of  his  life^  The  terms,  no  doubt  arranged  beforehand, 
were  not  hard  on  the  surface.  Thomas  was  obliged  to  surrender  the 
right  to  invest  with  the  regalia  the  Bishop  of  Sion,  who  now  became  an 
immediate  vassal  of  the  Empire ^  But  the  change  meant  that  the 
Count  lost  the  exclusive  control  of  Chablais  and  the  Great  St  Bernard 
route® ;  and  it  is  very  clear  that  the  imperial  policy  in  Piedmont  showed 
no  relaxation,  for  a  year  later  the  Abbey  of  Pinerolo  was  expressly  freed 
from  any  secular  rule  save  that  of  the  Empire,  thus  ending,  as  the  King 
hoped,  for  good  and  all,  the  ancient  claims  of  the  Count  over  its 
possessions  ^ 

There  was,  however,  no  means  of  resisting  the  King's  will,  and 
Boniface,  who   henceforward   takes  the  style  of   the  Count's   Tutor', 

^  He  was  the  grandson  of  Gisela,  great-grandmother  of  Count  Thomas.  See 
above,  p.  270.  For  the  friendship  of  his  father  with  Humbert  HI  cf.  above, 
pp.  333  and  336-7.  Savoy  and  Montferrat  were  natural,  defensive  allies  against 
the  over-strong  cities. 

2  Cf.  above,  p.  336,  n.  5,  and  p.  348. 

^  See  above,  p.  314,  n.  4. 

*  Car.  Reg.  CCCLXXi.  (M.D.R.  xxix.  p.  122):  "Post  cujus  (Humberti  IH) 
mortem  cum  filius  ejus  Thomas... in  graciam  imperii  et  nostram  rediret,  ex  ipsius 
consensu  et  bona  voluntate  et  communicato  principum  imperii  consilio  Sedunensem 

episcopatum  ad  manum  imperii  retinuimus  specialiter Ad  cujus  rei...evidenciam, 

Willelmum  episcopum...de  regalibus  investivimus." 

^  For  Martigny  was  held  from  the  Bishop,  not  from  the  Count ;  and  now,  while 
the  Bishop  was  freed  from  the  Count,  the  latter  still  remained  his  va.ssal  for  Chillon. 

®  Cartario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  Ii.  p.  79:  "Nos  monasterium  Pinarioli  atque 
locum  ipsum  ab  omni  alia  seculari  eximimus  potestate  ut  semper  de  cetero  ad  im- 
perium  pertineat  et  de  manu  imperatoris  vel  regis  eadem  abbatia  atque  locus 
predictus  recipiatur."     30  June  1190. 

''  Besides  the  documents  quoted  below  he  appears  as  such  in  Car.  Reg.  CCCLXXII. 
(Billiet  et  Albrieux,  Charles  de  Maurienne,  Doc.  Acad.  Savoie,  11.  p.  38),  dated 
12  June  1 1 89,  and  Car.  Reg.  CCCLXXIV.  [Misc.  Valdosl.,  B.S.S.S.  XVII.  p.  104). 


State  of  Burgundy  357 

returned  with  his  charge  to  make  a  formal  progress  through  his  counties, 
still  attended  by  the  great  magnates  of  the  land.  A  month  later  they 
were  holding  solemn  court  at  Susa'.  The  valley  of  that  name,  together 
with  Avigliana  and  Miradolo  and  some  rights  in  Pinerolo,  was  probably 
all  that  was  left  to  Savoy  after  Humbert  Ill's  disasters^. 

The  only  record  of  Thomas  and  his  guardian  for  the  next  year 
shows  them  honoured  guests  at  Henry  VI's  court  at  Fulda,  probably  to 
do  homage  on  his  accession  as  sole  ruler^;  but  early  in  1191  we  find 
them  in  Aosta,  confirming  the  Bishop's  rights.  Then  Thomas  appears 
at  Susa  on  the  7th  of  August,  founding  the  Chartreuse  of  Losa  by  his 
own  authority ^  In  fact  the  regency  was  over ;  and  Boniface  was 
already  departed  to  deal  with  the  new  storm  arisen  in  West  Lombardy. 

For  the  next  few  years  we  have  little  information  on  Thomas' 
movements,  but  the  traces  that  remain  of  them  show  him  engaged 
chiefly  in  Burgundian  affairs ^  The  situation  in  the  Transalpine  kingdom 
was  less  assured  now  than  formerly.  It  is  true  that  Duke  Hugh  III  of 
French  Burgundy  had  married  the  heiress  of  the  Dauphine  in  1183, 
and  that  he  was  an  imperialist^.  But  the  new  Hohenstaufen  ruler 
of  Franche  Comte,  Count  Otto,  was  losing  the  good  understanding 

^  Twenty-five  magnates  took  part,  including  the  Abbots  of  Novalesa,  Pinerolo 
and  Susa,  15  June  1189  (Car.  Sjip.  XL.  Collegno,  Certose  del  Piemonte,  Misc.  stor. 
ital.,  ser.  in.  Vol.  i.  p.  181). 

-  Thomas  has  powers  over  Miradolo  and  the  valley  of  Fenestrelle  in  1197  (Car. 
S»p.  XLVii.),  Miradolo  being  in  his  demesne  (see  below,  p.  367).  He  resides  at 
Rivalta  in  1197  (below,  p.  367). 

3  Car.  Reg.  CCCLXXVII.  (Bdhmer,  Acta  Imperii  Selecta,  p.  162),  14  July  1190,  by 
when  Barbarossa's  death  would  be  known.  I  think  that  Hellmann,  Die  Grafen  v. 
Savoyett,  pp.  72-3,  quite  underrates  the  high  position  normally  held  by  the  Counts 
of  Savoy  among  the  vassals  of  the  Empire.  Not  only  the  extent  and  geographical 
importance  of  their  territories,  but  also  their  high  descent,  kinsmen  of  the  Emperors 
and  the  Kings  of  France,  secured  their  status. 

*  Car.  Sup.  XLii.  (Collegno,  Certose  del  Piemonte,  Misc.  stor.  ital.,  ser.  in.  Vol.  I. 
p.  182).  Together  with  the  Bishops  of  Maurienne,  Sion  and  Aosta,  and  the  Abbots 
of  St  Maurice  and  Abbondance,  we  find  Count  Thomas  at  Thonon  in  New-Chablais 
some  time  in  1191  as  a  witness  in  an  ecclesiastical  dispute,  to  which  the  Hospital 
of  the  Great  St  Bernard  was  a  party  (Car.  Sup.  XLI.,  M^>n.  Doc.  Soc.  Hist.  Arch. 
Genh'e,  11.  2,  p.  48). 

*  We  find  him  at  Chamb^ry  in  1 196  (Car.  Reg.  ccclxxxvi.  ;  Guichenon,  Preuves, 
p.  45  and  Car.  Sup.  XLiv. ;  Collegno,  Certose  del  Piemonte,  Misc.  stor.  ital.,  ser. 
III.  Vol.  I.  p.  187);  at  St  Maurice  (Car.  Reg.  CCCLXXXIX. ;  M.H.P.  Chart.  l. 
1027),  and  probably  in  Maurienne  (Car.  Reg.  CCCLXXXVIII.  ;  Billiet  et  Albrieux, 
Chartes  de  Maurienne,  Doc.  Acad.  Sav.  II.  p.  44)  in  1195.  He  is  in  Italy  at 
S.  Ambrogio  in  11 94  (Car.  Sup.  XLili.  ;  Cartario  di  Staffarda,  B.S.S.S.  XI.  p.  90). 

*  Foumier,  p.  72.  I  may  here  remark  that  in  the  treaty  between  Duke  Hugh  HI 
and  Count  Otto  of  Franche  Comte,  the  correction  (made  by  Toeche,  Heinrich  VI, 
p.  655)  of  Polegium  into  Belley  is  impossible,  the  latter  being  a  Savoyard  possession. 
Presumably  Polegium  is  Pouilly-sur-Saone. 


35^  The  Burgundian  phase 

established  with  the  Anscarids  of  Auxonne  and  Macon ;  and  the  Duke 
of  Zahringen  was  at  war  with  his  Romance  subjects ^  The  conflict 
between  Duke  and  Seigneurs  was  raging  in  1190  and  1191,  and  the 
Duke  probably  lost  ground^.  It  must  have  been  tempting  for  the 
adventurous  young  Count  to  join  in  ;  but  he  wisely  restricted  himself  to 
nearer  gains,  without  being  wholly  regardless  of  the  opening  provided 
for  ambitious  schemes  by  the  war  north  of  Lake  Geneva  I  Quite  early 
he  renewed  the  alliance  with  the  Genevois  by  marrying  Count  William  I's 
daughter  Margaret^,  and  in  1196  he  made  the  important  acquisition  of 
the  castle  of  Cornillon  from  the  Abbey  of  St  Rambert,  just  outside  his 
county  of  Belley.  Here  we  seem  to  trace  the  after-effects  of  Henry  VI's 
march  in  Bugey  in  11 88;  for  the  Sires  de  Thoire,  then  favoured,  seem 
to  have  been  ill  neighbours.  The  main  reason,  however,  of  the  trans- 
action was  the  frequent  helplessness  of  the  lesser  ecclesiastical  lords 
against  their  lay  vassals.  So  now  the  Abbot  of  St  Rambert  enfeoffed 
to  the  Count  his  castle  of  Cornillon  and  the  jurisdiction  over  a  tract 
beside  it,  together  with  the  homage  of  nearly  all  his  lay  vassals,  who 
became  in  consequence  only  arriere-vassals  of  the  Abbey.  Various 
financial  profits  and  the  peaceful  bourg  of  St  Rambert  were  reserved  by 
the  Abbot;  but  the  main  fact  is  clear — the  Abbey  passed  under  the 
protectorate  of  its  new  nominal  vassals,  the  Counts  of  Savoy,  who 
began  in  this  way  the  extension  of  their  dominion  in  north  Burgundy^ 

^  Hellmann,  op.  cit.  p.  82. 

^  For  we  find  the  Count  of  the  Genevois  possessed  of  rights  at  Moudon  and  styling 
himself  Count  of  Vaud.  Cf.  Hisely,  Ctes.  de  Genevois,  Mem.  Inst.  Gen.  11.  39-40, 
and  see  Wurstemberger,  iv.  No.  38.  Whereas,  too,  the  battle  between  the  Duke 
and , his  foes  was  fought  in  1190  at  Payenne,  in  1191  it  was  at  Grindelwald.  But  cf. 
Heyck,  Herz'dge  v.  Zahringen,  pp.  430  ff.  But  I  think  he  misunderstands  Thomas' 
actions. 

^  To  this  perhaps  may  be  ascribed  his  gift  of  land  by  Chillon  to  the  Vaudois 
Abbey  of  Hautcret  (Car.  Reg.  CCCLXXXix. ;  see  above,  p.  357,  n.  5). 

■*  See  below,  p.  416.  His  eldest  son  Amadeus  first  appears  as  a  grantor  in  March 
1200  (Car.  Reg.  cccxcix.). 

^  Car.  Reg.  CCCLXXXVI.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  45):  "Nostrum  castrum,  quod 
dicitur  Cumillionis,  dedimus  ei  (Thomae)  et  successoribus  suis...tali  condicione,  ne 
illud  possit  alienare  a  comitatu,  neque  filiam  dotare  nee  alio  modo.... Dedimus  etiam 
comiti  a  fontana  Landini  usque  ad  aggerem  burgi  et  a  fossato  qui  est  in  colle  castri 
usque  ad  aquam  quae  dicitur  Arbarona  sub  tali  condicione :  fumi  et  molendini  qui 
sunt  vel  imposterum  fierent  infra  terminos  istos,  et  leyda  linguarum  et  lumborum 
erunt  abbatiae  in  perpetuum ;  comes  habebit  bannos  et  justitias  infra  terminos  istos — 
In  portione  sua  abbas  et  abbatia  quemcumque  voluerit  instituet  praepositum  seu 
mistralem  totius  burgi,  et  erit  homo  ligius  abbatis....In  rebus  quae  extra  illos  ter- 
minos sunt  positae... abbas  vel  abbatia... totum  sibi  retinuit,  tam  in  personis  hominum 
quam  in  aliis  rebus,  excepto  quod  fidelitates  nobilium  cum  eorum  feudis  quas  ecclesia 
ibi  hodie  habebat  a  Petra  Crispa  usque  ad  Petram  Altemiam  dedit... comiti  in  per- 
petuum,  et   fidelitates   et   consuetudines   quas   abbatiae   debebant,  deinceps  faciant 


Annexation  of  Cornillon.     Charter  to  Aosta     359 

If  in  view  of  later  history,  the  movement  westwards  appears  a  turn 
down  a  bUnd  alley,  it  was  a  future  which  could  not  then  be  foreseen  ; 
and  the  acquisition  of  these  rich  domains  beyond  the  Alps  increased 
the  strength  of  the  House  of  Savoy  for  those  Italian  schemes  which  in 
the  end  turned  out  to  be  the  true  road  to  its  exaltation. 

To  these  early  years  of  Count  Thomas  should  doubtless  be  ascribed 
a  step  which  marks  an  epoch  in  the  strictly  Burgundian  annals  of  Savoy, 
the  first  charter  to  the  city  of  Aosta ^  In  its  wider  aspect  this  shows 
the  Count  allying  himself  with  the  bourgeoisie  of  his  lands  for  the  first 
time  :  from  a  more  local  point  of  view  it  is  with  this  grant  that  the 
Count's  authority  gains  real  effectiveness  in  the  Val  d' Aosta.  In  that 
valley,  isolated  as  it  was  amid  the  Alps,  the  great  nobles,  the  ??taJores 
viri  et  capitanei  who  were  later  styled  pares,  had  acquired  an  exceptional 
independence  of  their  absentee  Count,  and  their  power  was,  it  seems, 
oppressive  to  the  other  classes  of  the  population.  It  was  the  easier  to 
practise  abuses  through  the  official  position  of  their  unquestioned  head, 
Boso  de  Chatillon,  viscount  and  vidame  and  mestral  of  Aosta ^  By 
virtue  of  his  three  offices  it  is  clear  that  the  greater  part  of  the  Count's 
dues  would  pass  through  his  hands,  and  it  is  just  this  financial  extortion 
that  the  charter  was  to  put  an  end  to.  In  any  case  a  solemn  court,  akin 
to  the  later  Assises  generales^,  was  held  at  Aosta,  and  the  city,  to  use  the 
charter's  vivid  phrase,  was  "given  over  to  liberty."  A  fixed  annual  sum 
was  substituted  for  the  arbitrary  tallages ;  and  a  fixed  scale  of  fines,  no 
doubt  embodying  older  custom,  was  declared  for  the  citizens'  offences. 
Further   and   not   least   important,    the   Count   extended   his    special 

comiti Ego  Thomas   Comes  ...juravimus  ...  abbati   fidelitatem   de  castro."      It   is 

interesting  to  see  the  daughter's  dowry  expressly  ruled  out ;  such  alienations  of 
Savoyard  land  in  Bugey  had  probably  been  frequent  and  account  for  the  homages 
of  Coligny,  Beaujeu,  etc.  See  above,  pp.  78,  268,  294-5.  The  part  played  by  the  Sires 
de  Thoire  in  these  transactions  is  inferred  from  Car.  Jieg.  CDLXXX. ;  cf.  below,  p.  392, 
and  Wurstemberger,  i.  64. 

^  Car.  Reg.  CCCLXXViii.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  82).  The  document  is  un- 
fortunately undated.  It  was  succeeded  by  another  charter,  likewise  without  a  date, 
clearly  at  an  interval  of  some  years  (see  below,  p.  378,  n.  2).  Thomas  was  in  Aosta 
with  his  tutor  in  1191,  and  later  in  1206  and  12 12.  From  the  names  of  the  witnesses 
and  from  the  fact  that  1 206  seems  the  most  appropriate  date  for  the  later  charter, 
I  incline  to  place  CCCLXXViii.  c.  1 195-6.  In  the  copy  of  1253,  which  is  all  we 
possess,  it  is  said  that  the  seal  of  Thomas'  son,  Amadeus  IV,  hung  with  his  from 
the  original.  But  Amadeus  is  not  mentioned  at  all  in  the  act,  and  his  seal  must 
belong  to  a  confirmation  by  him,  which  has  not  been  copied  in  the  charter  of  1253. 

*  See  below,  pp.  433-4,  441-2,  444,  for  Boso's  offices.  As  to  the  abuses,  the  charter 
says,  "visis  et  cognitis  calamitatibus  et  eciam  oppressionibus  et  injuriis  illatis,  trado 
civitatem  Auguste  cum  suburbiis  consilio  episcopi  Walberti  et  baronum  meorum 
libertati,  ita  quod  nunquam  deinceps  ego  vel  successores  mei  tailias  vel  exactiones 
invitas  per  me  vel  per  mistrales  meos  faciam." 

'  See  below,  Cap.  VI. 


360  The  Burgundian  phase 

protection  over  all  the  citizens,  without  reference  to  the  fact  that  they 
might  not  be  his  personal  vassals ^  There  was  nothing  revolutionary  in 
all  this,  but  the  example  of  an  alliance  with  the  third  estate  had  been 
set,  and  as  will  appear  later  Thomas  followed  up  the  concession  to 
Aosta  by  similar  charters. 

So  far  Count  Thomas  seems  to  have  been  occupied  almost  exclusively 
with  Burgundian  affairs,  but  from  1197  to  1200  Italian  schemes  and 
wars  take  the  first  place.  The  death  of  the  Emperor  Henry  VI  in 
September  1197,  followed  as  it  was  by  the  prolonged  civil  war  between 
the  rival  claimants  of  the  throne ^  freed  his  hands  to  some  extent,  we 
may  presume,  but  since  his  residence  in  Italy  begins  in  May  that  year'^ 
it  was  obviously  not  the  moving  cause.  That  has  to  be  sought  in 
subalpine  events. 

In  the  lands  now  called  Piedmont,  a  name  in  Count  Thomas'  day 
only  applied  to  the  wedge-like  district  between  the  Po  and  Sangano 
east  of  Pinerolo*,  the  fall  of  the  Savoyard  dominion  had  neither  brought 
peace  nor  a  less  intricate  political  situation.  The  land  was  parcelled 
out  into  dominions  of  all  sorts  and  sizes,  and  although  these  small 
authorities  may  be  grouped  conveniently  by  the  nature  of  their  power, 
and  to  some  extent  by  their  permanent  interests,  the  groups  had  yet  no 
homogeneity.  The  leading  members  of  each  type,  such  as  the  cities  of 
Asti  and  Alessandria,  might  be  bitter  rivals.  Even  where  some  permanent 
interest,  such  as  the  fact  that  the  western  and  northern  roads  ran 
through  Savoy,  compelled  a  careful  handling  by  one  state  of  its  relations 
with  another,  fresh  factors  might  intervene  and  warp  its  policy. 

Some  precision  may  be  given  to  these  general  statements  by  a 
description  of  the  position  and  circumstances  of  the  leading  members 
in  each  group.  First  I  may  take  the  greater  feudatories,  descendants  of 
the  ancient  comital  houses,  who  still  retained  their  independence  against 
rivals  of  all  kinds.  Among  these  the  Count  of  Savoy  possessed  the 
greatest  intrinsic  power ;  but  he  was  also  a  foreigner,  a  Burgundian,  the 
"  Ultramontane  "  Count.  In  his  effort  to  extend  his  dominion  he  was 
the  inevitable  foe  of  the  Piedmontese  lesser  lords  or  castellans,  the 
Bishop  of  Turin,  the  Communes  of  Turin,  and  Testona,  and  the 
Marquess  of  Saluzzo,  at  whose  expense  his  success  was  to  be  achieved. 
Of  the  Aleramid  Marquesses,  those  of  Montferrat  and  Saluzzo  were  by 

1  "  Ego  Thomas  comes  de  consilio  baronum  meorum  et  habitatorum  civitatis 
Auguste  recipio  in  protecione  mea  personas  clericorum,  civium  burgensium,  vineas 
et  omnes  possessiones  mobiles  et  immobiles.  Hec  autem  per  universum  comitatum 
sub  juramento  cum  baronibus  meis  observare...promitto." 

2  Philip  of  Hohenstaufen  and  Otto  IV  of  Brunswick. 
'  See  below,  p.  367. 

*  See  Merkel,  Un  Quarto  di  Secolo  di  Vita  Comunale,  p.  42. 


The  state  of  Piedmont  361 

much  the  first.  Boniface  of  Montferrat  maintained  a  warlike  inde- 
pendence in  the  hills  to  the  south  of  the  Po  and  west  of  Turin.  His 
lands  spread  north  almost  to  the  Alps  along  the  Stura  di  Lanzo  and 
southward  into  the  Langhe  beyond  the  Tanaro ;  but  their  kernel  was 
round  Chivasso  on  the  Po.  The  ability  possessed  by  his  romantic 
kindred,  who  carved  out  realms  for  themselves  in  the  East,  and  the  fine 
military  material  he  could  dispose  of,  made  him  formidable  to  his 
neighbours,  while  on  his  side  he  was  threatened  by  the  counter-ambition 
of  the  Communes  near,  anxious  to  control  the  roads  along  which  their 
commerce  passed.  The  Marquess  Manfred  II  of  Saluzzo  was  less 
happily  placed.  Not  only  were  his  demesnes  more  scattered  south  of 
the  Po  and  in  the  Langhe,  entangled  among  those  of  the  other  branches 
of  the  Aleramids  "  di  Vasto " ;  but  his  hold  on  his  vassals  was  less 
complete.  The  small  lords  in  their  consorzerie  and  their  dependent 
husbandmen,  who  dwelt  along  the  Stura  di  Demonte,  shared  in  the 
profits  of  the  trade  which  ran  south-west  over  the  passes  of  Argentera 
and  Tenda ;  and  the  result  seems  to  have  been  the  awakening  of  the 
communal  spirit  and  a  resentment  of  the  authority  and  exactions  of 
their  overlord.  Places  such  as  Savigliano,  Vico,  Romanisio  and  Borgo 
S.  Dalmazzo^  began  to  take  the  appearance  of  petty  communes,  and  to 
claim  greater  or  less  independence.  Discontent  led  to  revolt,  and  the 
revolts  led  to  the  foundation  of  new  towns,  of  which  Cuneo,  which  first 
certainly  appears  in  1198,  is  the  most  important-.  Although  the  new 
Communes  were  anti-feudal  in  their  tendency,  they  were  by  no  means 
democratic  places.  Their  ruling  class  was  mainly  drawn  from  the  lesser 
nobility,  and  these  retained  for  many  years  their  feudal  dues,  if  not 
their  feudal  jurisdiction".  But  an  Italian  commune  however  composed, 
very  reluctantly  admitted  a  sovran  authority  above  its  Councils,  and  the 
Marquesses  of  Saluzzo  did  not  possess  the  skill  of  the  House  of  Savoy 
in  dealing  with  them.  At  the  same  time  they  could  not  deal  with  them 
apart  from  foreign  intervention,  for  the  great  city  of  Asti  was  deeply 

1  Vico  (later  Monreale  and  Mondovi)  was  a  possession  of  the  Bishop  of  Asti  {Lib. 
Inst.  Mottdov),  B.S.S.S.  xxiv.  p.  19)  and  Borgo  S.  Dalmazzo,  the  immediate  lord 
of  which  was  its  Abbot,  was  divided  between  the  Bishop  and  the  Marquess  of  Saluzzo 
{Reg.  March.  Saluzzo,  B.S.S.S.  xvi.  No.  71).  Savigliano's  immediate  lords  were  the 
rtumerous  consortes  of  Salmour  and  the  Abbot  of  Savigliano  (see  Sella,  Codex... de 
Malabayla,  No.  711). 

-  Cf.  Prof.  Gabotto,  Storia  di  Cuneo,  and  especially  Bertano's  admirable  Storia  di 
Cuneo. 

*  See  Gabotto,  //  Conncne  a  Cuneo  ecc.  Boll.  stor.  bibl.  subalp.  Anno  v  ;  a 
document  of  1245  shows  a  signore  of  Caraglio  still  possessing  tolls  etc.  in  Cuneo 
and  Savigliano  {Cartario  di  Staffarda,  B.S.S.S.  XI.  283).  That  the  less  oppressive 
financial  rights  should  long  survive  the  hereditary  jurisdiction  is  quite  in  keeping 
with  other  feudal  history.  In  fact  the  ex-lords  became  privileged  members  of  the 
Commune. 


362  The  Burgundian  phase 

concerned  in  the  road  to  Provence,  and,  aided  by  the  possessions  of 
her  Bishop  in  the  district,  was  determined  to  extend  her  dominion 
over  it. 

More  powerful  than  the  Marquesses  of  Saluzzo,  but  more  exposed 
than  they  to  the  attacks  of  the  leading  cities,  were  the  Counts  of 
Biandrate,  whose  fragmentary  domains  spread  from  Novara  to  Ivrea 
and  Chieri.  Not  to  mention  their  eastward  enmities  these  Counts  held 
by  recent  imperial  diploma  the  rule  of  Ivrea  and  Chieri,  neither  of 
which  towns  was  at  all  complete  or  willing  subjects. 

"  These  were  the  prime  in  order  and  in  might."  A  second  group 
of  potentates  may  be  composed  of  the  secondary  lords,  ecclesiastical 
and  lay.  Of  the  former  variety  the  Bishops  of  Turin  and  Asti  were  the 
most  important.  The  first  named,  so  far  as  the  extent  of  his  domains 
and  his  formal  rights  went,  should  have  been  the  most  powerful  magnate 
in  his  diocese ;  but  much  of  his  land  was  held  by  over-strong  and 
unruly  lay  vassals,  such  as  the  Marquesses  of  Saluzzo  and  Montferrat  or 
the  Piossasco  and  the  Commune  of  Testona,  who  insisted  on  distin- 
guishing with  extraordinary  acuteness  between  his  spiritual  and  secular 
prerogatives  and  in  ascribing  an  infectious  invalidity  to  the  latter.  The 
Bishop's  strength  really  depended  on  the  state  of  his  relations  with  the 
semi-subject  Commune  of  Turin,  and  even  there  too  great  a  success  in 
controlling  it  was  sure  to  alienate  it.  Add  to  this  his  continual  rivalry 
in  the  city  and  western  plain  with  the  Count  of  Savoy,  and  it  becomes 
obvious  that  his  better  days  were  over.  A  decline  in  fact  set  in  at  once 
when  Bishop  Milo  was  translated  to  Milan,  and  Ardoin  di  Valperga 
took  his  place  in  11 88.  With  regard  to  the  Bishop  of  Asti  there  is  little 
to  say,  for  his  importance  was  less  and  he  had  lost  all  directing  power 
in  his  city,  while  his  vassals  in  the  country-side  were  no  less  unruly  than 
those  of  his  brother  of  Turin. 

To  come  to  the  secular  lords  of  secondary  status,  we  may  note  that 
their  substantial  power  was  lessened  by  the  singular  intricated  nature  of 
their  scattered  demesnes  and  rights,  by  the  condition  of  dependence  in 
which  they  stood  to  diverse  lords,  and  by  the  inroads  which  were  made 
in  their  authority  by  the  growth  of  the  Communes.  Thus  the  Mar- 
quesses of  Romagnano  in  Thomas'  time  were  vassals  of  the  Emperor, 
the  Bishop  of  Turin,  the  Count  of  Savoy,  the  Marquess  of  Saluzzo,  the 
Abbot  of  Pinerolo,  to  mention  no  others,  while  in  their  richest  town  of 
Carignano  they  only  held  some  half  of  the  territory,  and  their  authority 
was  diminished  by  the  appearance  of  a  Commune.  Among  nobles  of 
this  degree  of  importance  we  may  single  out  the  Marquesses  of  Busca, 
an  impecunious  side-branch  of  the  Saluzzo  house,  with  lands  interwoven 
with  those  of  Saluzzo ;  the  Castellans  of  Piossasco,  whose  lands  were 
sprinkled  between  Pinerolo  and  Testona,  the  Viscounts  of  Baratonia, 


The  state  of  Piedmont  363 

who  besides  being  landowners  in  the  Val  di  Susa  possessed  wide  pro- 
perties amid  the  Graian  Alps  and  to  the  north  of  the  Dora  Riparia, 
and  the  Counts  of  the  Canavese  south  of  Ivrea.  It  would  not  be  easy 
to  make  an  exact  map  of  the  lands  of  these  feudatories,  which  were 
intertwined  in  inextricable  fashion,  while  the  confusion  was  made  worse 
by  the  practice  of  compossession  among  the  Castellans  \ 

Far  easier  to  describe  is  the  third  division,  the  Communes.  The 
greatest  was  Asti,  now  reaching  the  height  of  her  power  and  about  to 
aim  at  the  rule  of  the  subalpine  land.  Already  the  lesser  lords  round 
were  subdued,  and  she  was  preparing  to  control  the  roads  as  far  as  the 
Alps.  But  her  enemies  were  many  and  dangerous.  The  Marquess  of 
Montferrat  held  the  hills  above  the  Tanaro  to  the  north  and  with  a 
mixture  of-  dread,  greed  and  ambition  was  her  perpetual  foe ;  the 
Marquess  of  Saluzzo  and  his  kin  were  to  west  and  south ;  the  Count  of 
Savoy,  safe  beyond  the  Alps,  held  the  chief  road  to  the  west  and  was 
eager  to  press  south.  Still  more  formidable  at  this  time  were  the  rival 
Communes.  Alessandria  was  strongest  of  them  and  soon  to  become  a 
mere  enemy ;  Alba  was  necessary  to  subdue  from  her  position  on  the 
southerly  routes,  and  therefore  was  necessarily  hostile,  if  only  to  retain 
the  dearly  loved  autonomy  of  a  Lombard  Commune ;  Turin  and 
Testona  on  the  Mont  Cenis  route  were  suspicious  neighbours  at  best, 
and  Chieri,  close  by,  was  only  a  friend  because  Turin,  Testona  and  the 
Marquess  of  Montferrat  were  dangerous  to  herself.  Even  the  consorzerie 
and  new  Communes  to  the  south-west  were  not  anxious  for  more 
Astigian  intervention  than  they  could  avoid. 

Such  cities  as  Vercelli  and  Novara  need  not  be  more  than  men- 
tioned, for  they  play  a  quite  incidental  part  in  Savoyard  history,  but 
some  of  the  other  Communes  require  a  reference  to  their  internal 
government.  Ivrea  and  Turin  were  less  secure  against  their  feudal 
neighbours  than  other  cities  of  similar  importance,  and  in  consequence 
were  more  disposed  to  accept  imperial  interference.  In  both  we  find 
in  these  years  an  imperial  Podestct.  Ivrea's  castle  with  the  suzerainty  of 
the  city  had  been  granted  by  Barbarossa  to  the  Counts  of  Biandrate, 
and  the  townsmen  were  reduced  to  displaying  a  creditable  but  novel 
zeal  for  their  Bishop's  rights  which  were  infringed  thereby.  Turin, 
which  was  somewhat  similarly  trammelled  by  the  Bishop  and  the  Count 
of  Savoy,  soon  made  the  same  submission.  Little  Testona  suffered 
under  the  Bishop  of  Turin  and  the  lords  of  Piossasco  in  particular. 

1  Documents  which  specially  illustrate  this  fact  are  Carte  dd  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S. 
III.  2,  p.  215,  id.  p.  245,  and  Gabotto,  //  Comune  a  Cutieo,  Boll.  stor.  bibl.  subalp. 
Anno  V.  p.  74.  It  is  however  difficult  to  distinguish  the  subtenants  under  the 
"signori"  from  the  latter  themselves:  and  we  may  thus  very  much  enlarge  the 
number  of  them.  For  the  title  of  castellan  assumed  by  the  barons  of  less  degree 
see  above  p.  259,  n.  4. 


364  The  Burgundian  phase 

Chieri,  which  kept  the  Bishop  at  bay,  was  obUged  to  admit  some  rights 
of  the  Count  of  Biandrate,  to  whom  Barbarossa  had  enfeoffed  it. 
Pinerolo  acknowledged  its  Abbot  as  suzerain  and  the  Count  of  Savoy 
as  the  churchman's  vassal  for  certain  functions.  One  ruling  passion 
possessed  these  Communes  as  it  did  all  their  neighbours,  the  desire  for 
complete  autonomy,  for  sovranty  in  all  their  actions.  It  was  this  which 
overrode  their  trade  interests,  and  which  later  was  to  make  them  prefer  a 
dynast  who  did  not  concern  himself  with  their  internal  administration, 
and  who  was  impartial  in  the  matter  of  trading  privileges,  to  the  jealous 
rule  of  another  Commune. 

Above  and  around  the  conflicting  entities  of  nobles  and  Communes 
there  was  still  the  Empire,  weak  indeed  and  inefficient,  but  by  no 
means  a  bare  name  in  the  days  of  Henry  VI.  Some  pains  had  been 
taken  by  Barbarossa  and  his  son  to  obtain  a  territorial  hold  on  West 
Lombardy.  Annone,  commanding  the  eastern  outlet  of  the  Tanaro's 
valley,  had  been  wrested  from  Asti^;  Airasca  in  the  plain  of  Piedmont 
proper  between  the  Po  and  the  Sangano  had  been  bought  from  Frut- 
tuaria  Abbey ;  and  the  whole  valley  of  the  Stura  di  Demonte  leading 
to  the  Argentera  pass  from  the  Marquess  of  Saluzzo".  For  the  safe- 
guarding of  imperial  interests  a  legate  or  nuncio  was  appointed,  who 
was  also  Podesta  of  one  or  two  of  the  more  submissive  towns.  Thus 
Drusard,  legate  in  1185  and  1187,  was  Podesta  of  Ivrea  and  Chieri^: 
while  Thomas  the  Castellan  of  Annone,  legate  from  c.  11 90  on,  became 
Podesta  of  Turin ^. 

When  Boniface  of  Montferrat  returned  to  Italy  in  1191,  the  flames 
of  war  were  ready  to  burst  out  in  two  directions,  and  in  the  condition 
of  affairs  I  have  just  described,  it  was  impossible  that  the  two  broils 
should  be  kept  apart,  while  through  the  same  intricacy  of  interests  and 
alliances  it  was  not  likely  that  they  should  wholly  coalesce.  The  first 
of  these  conflicts  gave  a  fatal  shock  to  the  power  of  the  Bishop  of  Turin 
in  his  city.  Bishop  Ardoin,  who  in  11 90  could  exact  hard  conditions 
for  their  restoration  from  the  consortes  of  Rivoli,  where  he  had  his 
country-castle  on  the  last  spur  of  the  Alps^  in  1191  is  clearly  non- 
resident  in  Turin  and   at  war  with   his   most   powerful   vassals,    the 

1  Sella,  Codex... de  Malabayla,  No.  636  (7  July  1S78). 

2  Tallone,  Reg.  March.  Saluzzo,  B.S.S.S.  xvi.  No.  84. 

3  Ficker,  Forschutigen  zur . . .Geschichte  Italiens,  li.  145.  He  left  for  Germany 
early  in  1189,  to  return  in  X194  for  wider  functions,  id.  147. 

*  He  appears  as  legate  "Totius  Taurinensis  episcopatus  legatus"  in  March  1191 
{Carte... arcivesc.  di  Torino,  B.S.S.S.  xxxvi.  p.  90).  Like  Drusard  he  was  a  German 
"Dienstmann." 

^  Carte  del  Pinerokse,  B.S.S.S.  III.  2,  p.  245.  Hellmann,  p.  76,  has  confused 
these  nobiles  de  Ripulis  with  the  Piossasco,  who  had  a  separate  claim  to  the  castellany. 
See  below. 


Wars  in  Piedmont  365 

Piossasco\  By  July  1193  he  could  submit  to  a  disastrous  peace, 
which  Thomas  of  Annone,  the  imperial  legate,  negotiated  for  him. 
The  Commune  of  Turin,  which  probably  had  turned  against  him, 
received  the  greatest  gains,  for  Ardoin  surrendered  to  it  the  complete 
military  control  of  all  his  demesne-castles,  including  those  of  Testona 
and  Montossolo.  To  do  this  the  unfortunate  Bishop  was  compelled  to 
buy  out  the  rights  of  the  Piossasco  in  Testona  by  ceding  his  demesne 
of  Piobesi  to  them,  and  could  only  obtain  in  return  a  suspension  of  the 
Piossasco's  claim  to  Rivoli  castle  for  fifteen  years.  The  peace  inevitably 
sowed  the  seeds  of  new  dissension,  for  Testona  and  Chieri  would  never 
endure  the  state  of  vassalage  to  their  rival  Turin,  which  was  implied  in 
the  latter's  possession  of  the  Bishop's  castles,  since  Testona  was  com- 
manded by  the  fortress  in  the  town  and  the  road  leading  north  from 
Chieri  by  the  stronghold  of  Montossolo-. 

Boniface  himself  was  the  protagonist  in  the  second  war,  which  was 
provoked  by  the  ambition  and  dangerous  success  of  the  city  of  Asti. 
Not  that  Asti,  although  she  appears  as  the  incendiary  of  conflicts  that 
lasted  for  some  forty  years,  had  really  much  choice  in  the  matter.  She 
could  not  stand  by  while  her  trade  was  choked  and  her  citizens  wronged 
by  the  ignorant  greed  of  great  feudal  lords,  or  the  malicious  emulation 
of  rival  towns.  It  lay  in  the  nature  of  things  that  a  mercantile  city, 
whose  greatness  proceeded  from  her  situation  at  the  junction  of  the 
routes  of  traffic,  should  also  suffer  the  disadvantage  of  being  separated 
from  her  customers  beyond  the  Italian  frontier,  and  that  she  should 
endeavour  in  consequence  to  secure  at  least  a  free  passage  to  the  Alps 
and  the  Apennines.  Towards  the  south-western  passes,  as  I  have 
explained  above,  the  Marquess  of  Saluzzo  stood  in  her  way,  and 
Manfred  II,  then  ruUng,  was  unwise  enough  to  provoke  a  contest  and 
irritate  his  own  subjects,  too,  by  extortionate  and  repeated  tolls.  By 
his  miscalculation  he  gave  the  old  order  little  chance  to  survive  in  the 
growing  age.  Perhaps  he  thought  it  best  to  fight  at  once  to  avoid 
sinking  into  a  city-patrician. 

However  that  may  be,  by  May  1191  he  had  been  badly  beaten, 

^  His  charters,  1 191-2,  are  dated  mainly  from  Rivoli.  See  Carte  del  PineroUse. 
One  of  June  1192  is  dated  from  Turin  {Carte  arcivesc.  di  Torino,  B.S.S.S.  XXXVI. 
p.  98),  one  from  Testona,  July  1 191  (id.  p.  92).  The  war  seems  to  have  begun  with 
some  transgression  of  Ardizzone  di  Piossasco,  who  refused  to  appear  later  before  the 
Bishop  and  then  forfeited  his  episcopal  fiefs  (id.  p.  102).  That  it  was  Ardizzone, 
not  the  Bishop,  who  was  imprisoned  was  pointed  out  by  Hellmann,  p.  76. 

^  The  two  treaties  with  Turin  and  the  Piossasco  are  given  in  Carte  arcivesc.  di 
Torino,  B.S.S.S.  xxxvi.  pp.  100  and  102.  Merlo  di  Piossasco  received  the  fief 
forfeited  by  Ardizzone,  and  also  1 70  Susian  pounds  from  the  Commune.  Cf.  on  the 
vidirG2boX.io,L'Abazia...diPitterolo,  B.S.S.S.  I.  130-1,  Hellmann,  p. 76  (who  however 
makes  some  blunders),  and  the  not  yet  antiquated  Cibrario,  Storia  di  Ckieri,  i.  p.  70. 


366  The  Burgundian  phase 

and,  being  the  loser,  paid^  Not  only  was  he  forced  to  grant  full 
commercial  privileges  to  the  Astigians  and  engage  to  exact  only  the 
customary  toll,  but  the  fate  he  feared  descended  partially  upon  him. 
He  became  an  Astigian  citizen  and  vassal  of  the  Commune,  his  dis- 
contented trading  township  of  Romanisio  being  perhaps  the  most 
important  of  his  new  fiefs ".  His  brief  submission  was,  however,  rather 
a  forecasting  of  future  events  than  an  assured  result  itself,  for  his 
mightier  kinsman  of  Montferrat  joined  the  fray,  whether  at  Asti's 
provocation  or  not.  The  foes  met  in  June  at  Montiglio  in  Montferrat, 
where  the  Astigians,  with  their  allies  the  Alessandrians,  equally  enemies 
of  Boniface,  suffered  a  disastrous  defeat  from  the  warlike  Marquess^. 
For  fifteen  years  the  war  thus  begun  raged  with  little  intermission, 
drawing  into  its  vortex  the  greater  number  of  the  neighbouring  powers. 
Six  times  did  the  combatants  make  truce  or  peace,  but  as  their  strength 
was  not  exhausted  and  neither  was  willing  to  yield  in  reality,  hostilities 
always  recommenced.  In  1193,  the  year  of  Bishop  Ardoin's  sub- 
mission, Asti  seemed  triumphant.  She  resubdued  Manfred  H  of 
Saluzzo^  and  carried  through  a  treaty  of  union  with  her  angry  rival 
Alba^  Next  year  she  strengthened  her  position  by  alliances  with 
Chieri'',  which  could  now  put  pressure  on  her  episcopal  suzerain",  and 
Vercelli^  But  these  successes  were  not  unchequered ;  Boniface  in 
peace  and  war  had  something  to  his  credit  also  ;  Turin's  hostility  is 
shown  by  her  acceptance  of  the  legate  Thomas  of  Annone  as  her 
podestd,"^ ;  and  the  Emperor  Henry's  passage  over  the  Great  St  Bernard 
and  Turin  to  the  south  in  July  1196^"  was  more  favourable  to  the  weaker 

^  Reg.  March.  Saluzzo,  B.S.S.S.  xvi.  Nos.  89-90  (91-3  are  duplicates  of  the 
peace  in  1193)  (Sella,  Codex.. .de  Malabayla,  Nos.  690  and  908).  See  Bertano, 
pp.  67-8. 

2  See  for  his  rights  there  Reg.  March.  Sal.  pp.  317  and  319.  The  other  lands  for 
which  he  became  a  vassal  of  Asti  were  his  share  of  Saluzzo  itself  (originally  perhaps 
one-third)  and  Castiglione  Tinella  in  the  Albese. 

^  Ogger.  Alf.  cap.  10  (Sella,  Codex. ..de  Malabayla,  p.  58). 

*  Reg.  March.  Sal.,  B.S.S.S.  xvi.  Nos.  98-104.     Cf.  Bertano,  p.  69. 

^  Rig....Albe,  B.S.S.S.  xx.  pp.17  and  54.  Cf.  Bertano,  p.  70.  The  arrangement 
was  rather  a  strict  alliance  with  equal  private  rights  for  citizens  of  either  than  a 
political  union. 

^  Cibrario,  Storia  di  Chieri,  i.  74  and  ll.  32,  and  Sella,  Codex. ..de  Malabayla, 
No.  •283. 

7  Cibrario,  id.  I.  71.  The  treaty  between  Chieri  and  the  Bishop  (14  Ap.  1195) 
has  been  lost.  *  M.H.P.  Chart.  I.  loio.     See  Bertano,  p.  70. 

"  He  first  appears  as  such  in  March  1196  (Cibrario,  Storia  di  Torino,  i.  502). 
Henry  VI  also  enfeoffed  to  him  a  Turinese  toll  (Stumpf,  4977),  and  the  imperial  palace 
at  Turin  (Ficker,  Forschungen,  il.  p.  210). 

^^  Stumpf,  5018-5022.  On  this  occasion,  28  July  1196,  he  confirmed  Archbishop 
Aymon  of  Tarentaise's  immediacy  for  his  regalia.     (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  103.) 


Thomas  intervenes  in  Piedmont  367 

side^  When  the  Emperor  died  in  September  1197,  everything  was 
ready  for  a  renewal  of  the  obstinate  struggle,  and  this  time  a  new 
champion  was  to  participate  in  it. 

Throughout  May  and  June  1197  we  find  Count  Thomas  of  Savoy 
resident  at  Rivalta^.  In  January  and  February  1198  he  is  at  Susa^  in 
March  the  same  year  at  Miradolo^  It  is  true  his  occupations  were 
those  of  peace.  He  confirmed  his  grandfather's  charter  to  Susa, 
acknowledging  at  the  same  time  the  further  customs  which  had  grown 
up ;  to  Miradolo  he  granted  a  fixed  tax  in  lieu  of  the  arbitrary  tallage. 
But  there  are  signs  of  other  interests.  We  note  among  his  entourage  a 
Marquess  of  Romagnano',  and  that  very  Ardizzone  of  Piossasco,  old 
rebel  of  the  Bishop  of  Turin"'.  In  October  1198  we  find  he  is  an  ally 
of  the  Commune  of  Ivrea''. 

When  the  news  of  the  Emperor's  death  arrived,  Asti  at  once 
prepared  for  action.  On  the  30th  of  October  1197  she  entered  into  a 
new  alliance  with  Alessandria  against  their  common  foe  of  Montferrat 
and  the  war  began.  Almost  all  the  powers  of  modern  Piedmont  were 
involved,  but  the  actual  operations  tended  to  be  divided  into  a  south 
and  eastern,  and  a  north-western  conflict.  In  the  former  fell  Asti  and 
Alessandria,  with  Asti's  Bishop  and  the  newly  formed  Communes  of 
Savigliano  and  Romanisio.  Against  them  were  arrayed  the  Marquesses 
of  Montferrat  and  Saluzzo  with  the  lesser  Aleramid  Marquesses,  and 
the  city  of  Alba.  In  the  north-western  group,  which  more  nearly 
concerns  us,  we  find  Chieri  and  Testona,  the  Piossasco,  the  Cavour, 
and  the  Count  of  Savoy  fighting  Turin  and  its  Bishop,  who  are  aided 
by  the  Counts  of  Biandrate  and  the  lords  of  Revigliasco  and  Cavoretto. 
Thus  Thomas  was  on  opposite  sides  to  his  late  guardian,  for  Chieri 
and  Testona  were  allies  of  Asti ;  but  in  point  of  fact  the  war  was  so 
diffused  and  so  much  an  amalgam  of  disconnected  feuds,  that  this  fact 

^  Carte  arcivesc.  di  Torino,  B.S.S.S.  xxxvi.  p.  109,  where  (25  Sept.  1196)  he 
concedes  to  Bishop  Ardoin  the  right  of  recovering  fiefs  alienated  by  the  episcopal 
vassals.  Perhaps  this  has  something  to  do  with  Ct.  Thomas'  recovery  of  Rivalta, 
see  below. 

2  Car.  Reg.  cccxci.  (M.H.P.  Chart.  I.  1036),  Car.  Stip.  XLiv.  (CoUegno,  Ceriose 
del  Piemonte,  Doc.  xi.),  XLV.  {id.  Doc.  xn. ),  XLVI.  (id.  Doc.  xiv.),  and  xlvii.  {Cartario 
di  PinerolOf  B.S.S.S.  II.  p.  82).  The  Staufen  Carthusian  Dietrich  is  with  him,  one 
may  note. 

^  Car.  Reg.  cccxciii.  cccxciv.  (iM.H.P.  Leges  munic.  c.  5),  Car.  Sup.  xlviii. 
(M.H.P.  Chart,  i.  955). 

••  Car.  Reg.  cccxcv.  (Cartario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  II.  p.  83). 

'  Car.  Sup.  XLVII. 

8  Car.  Reg.  cccxcv. 

^  Car.  Reg.  cccxcvii.  [Carte  vescov.  d'lvrea,  B.S.S.S.  vi.  p.  284).  "  Et  homines 
Ipporediae...juraverunt...adjuvare  (marchiones  Montisferrati)  contra  omnes  homines, 
salvo  imperatore  et  comite  Savoiae  et  habitatoribus  hominum  Ipporeggiae." 


368  The  Burgundian  phase 

does  not  mean  any  real  unfriendliness  or  hostilities  between  the 
kinsmen. 

It  is  significant  of  the  objects  really  held  in  view  by  the  contending 
parties  that  the  first  moves  on  both  sides  consisted  of  a  general  attack 
on  the  imperial  domains  in  Piedmont.  They  had  no  feud  or  rivalry 
or  even  commercial  grievance  here ;  but  the  imperial  lands  lay  at 
strategic  points  on  the  trade-routes,  and  hampered  their  autonomy  and 
state-policy.  So  Boniface  and  his  kinsman  of  Saluzzo  seized  on  the 
valley  of  the  Stura  di  Demonte  in  November  1197.  They  settled  their 
joint  claims  by  the  enfeoffment  of  their  conquest  by  the  Marquess  of 
Montferrat  to  Boniface  the  heir  of  Saluzzo  ^  While  the  two  Aleramids 
were  thus  engaged,  the  Astigians  were  besieging  Annone,  the  key  of 
the  Tanaro  valley,  and  in  December  obtained  possession  of  it  from  the 
wife  of  Thomas  the  Legate^.  The  latter's  misfortunes  did  not  stop 
there.  By  January  1199  he  had  been  driven  from  the  J>odes Ai-ship  of 
Turin  ^.     The  imperial  rule  in  Piedmont  was  a  thing  of  the  past. 

The  ground  was  now  clear,  and  Asti,  under  the  skilful  guidance  of 
her  ruling  merchants,  could  strike  boldly  for  the  control  of  the  south- 
western road.  She  had  already  recognized  the  Commune  of  Romanisio. 
Now  in  the  spring  of  1198  the  Astigian  forces  marched  up  the  Stura  di 
Demonte  to  the  foot  of  the  Alps.  The  discontented  lesser  lords  and 
freemen  rallied  round  from  Caranta,  Brusaporcelli*  and  similar  villages. 
Manfred  of  Saluzzo  was  either  defeated  or  kept  at  bay  :  and  it  seemed 
possible  to  bridle  him  in  perpetuity.  The  means  was  ready  to  their 
hand.  At  the  confluence  of  the  Stura  and  the  Gesso  there  rose  a  spur 
of  the  Alps,  called  from  its  triangular  shape  the  Piz  di  Cuneo.  With 
steep  sides  and  level  crest  it  was  a  superb  situation  for  a  town ;  its 
owner,  the  Abbot  of  S.  Dalmazzo,  was  no  friend  of  Manfred  II ;  and  it 
commanded  the  junction  of  the  Tenda  and  Argentera  passes.  So  here 
the  rebel  countrymen  were  settled,  and  formed  into  a  new  Commune, 
dependent  on  and  strictly  allied  with  Asti.  No  deadlier  blow  at  the 
Marquess  could  have  been  struck  \ 

1  Heg.  March.  Saluzzo,  B.S.S.S.  xvi.  No.  115. 

2  Sella,  Codex. ..de  Malabayla,  No.  638. 

3  Cibrario,  Storia  di  Torino,  i.  504 ;  Hellmann,  p.  78. 

*  Caranta  or  Quaranta  seems  to  have  been  the  present  hamlet  of  S.  Benigno,  near 
Cuneo  (Bertano,  p.  32) ;  another  fraction  of  the  place  survives  in  Tarantasca  close  by. 
Brusaporcelli  was  close  to  Boves  (see  above,  p.  159,  n.  7). 

^  Bertano,  pp.  25-32,  73-6,  81-5.  Gioffredo  della  Chiesa,  Cron.  di  Saluzzo 
{M.H.P.  Script.  III.  880),  antedates  the  event  by  10  years.  Cuneo's  earliest  document, 
the  treaty  with  Asti  (Sella,  Codex. ..de  Malabayla,  No.  717),  is  dated  23  June  1198. 
The  Abbot  of  S.  Dalmazzo  consents  to  the  transaction.  The  Cuneese  swear  to  the 
treaty  with  one  reservation,  "salva  fidelitate  dominorum  suorum."  This  of  course 
in  a  way  safeguarded  the  Marquess  of  Saluzzo's  rights,  but  it  probably  chiefly  refers 
to  the  lesser  lords,  many  of  whom  were  become  the  leading  citizens  of  the  new  town. 


Progress  of  the  Piedmontese  war  369 

In  the  next  year  the  main  scene  of  the  war  seems  to  have  lain 
further  east,  Ivrea,  Vercelli  and  Acqui  bringing  their  feuds  to  the 
common  stock,  and  joining  in  the  fray^  VerceUi  was  on  Asti's  side; 
the  other  two  were  alHed  with  Marquess  Boniface  of  Montferrat. 
While  sporadic  fighting  went  on  up  and  down  the  country,  nothing 
pleased  the  warlike  Communes  better  than  to  mediate  between  other 
of  the  combatants.  The  chance  of  this  now  occurred  to  Asti  and 
Vercelli.  The  unlucky  Bishop  of  Turin  had  been  captured  by  his  old 
enemies,  the  Piossasco^,  and  although  no  other  notice  of  the  progress 
of  the  north-western  war  has  come  down  to  us,  it  is  clear  that  the 
Bishop  and  Commune  of  Turin  had  had  considerably  the  worst  of  the 
strife.  In  mid-October  1199  Chieri  had  consented  to  the  mediation  of 
her  allies^,  and  the  definite  peace  was  made  in  February  of  the  following 
year^  Turin  submitted  to  give  up  for  the  time  at  least  those  ambitions 
which  made  her  neighbours  her  necessary  enemies.  Chieri  obtained 
Montossolo,  Testona  her  castle,  both  as  fiefs  from  the  Bishop,  and  thus 
assured  their  independence,  the  real  object  of  their  participation  in  the 
war.  Less  favourable  terms  were  granted  to  their  allies.  The  Piossasco 
were  referred  to  a  future  Astigian  arbitration  on  their  dispute  with  the 
Bishop  l  The  Count  of  Savoy  was  similarly  promised  the  satisfaction 
of  his  claims  on  Turin,  and,  if  it  was  not  given  him,  Chieri  and  Testona 
were  to  join  him  in  the  war  to  obtain  it®.     Count  Thomas'  actions  now 

^  See  Bertano,  p.  74.  Ivrea's  alliance  (22  Oct.  1198)  with  Montferrat  is  the 
document  Car.  Reg.  cccxcvii.  (see  above  p.  367,  n.  7).  It  is  directed  against  Vercelli 
only.  For  the  alliance  of  Vercelli  with  Asti  and  Alessandria  see  Sella,  Codex. ..de 
Malabayla,  No.  993  (15  March  11 98);  it  is  directed  against  Montferrat,  Casale  and 
one  or  two  small  communes.  These  treaties  well  illustrate  this  peculiarly  local 
character  of  a  warfare  which  was  general. 

-  Car.  Reg.  cccxcviii.  {Carte  arcivcsc.  di  Torino,  B.S.S.S.  xxxvi.  p.  114).  See 
below,  n.  4.  Cf.  Hellmann,  p.  79.  This  is  a  different  event  from  the  imprisonment 
of  Ardizzone  di  Piossasco  in  1191-2. 

^  Sella,  Codex... de  Alalabay la,  Nos.  279-81. 

^  Car.  Reg.  CCCXCVIII.,  cu.  {Carte  arcivesc.  di  Torino,  B.S.S.S.  XXXVI.  p.  114), 
dated  lo-ii  Feb.  and  30  March  1200. 

^  "Super  facto  domini  Taurinensis  episcopi  et  illorum  de  Plo^'asco  sic  statutum 
est... viz.  quod  liceat  ipsi  episcopo  et  illis  clericis  qui  cum  eo  capti  fuerunt  convenire 
illos  de  Plo^asco  sub  e.xamine  potestalum  vel  consulum  Aste  et  Vercellarum." 

*  "  Preterea  episcopus  Taurinensis,  nomine  ecclesie,  et  potestas  Taurinensium, 
nomine  comunis  de  Taurine,  debent  promittere  comiti  Sabaudie  quod  facient  ei 
justiciam  de  his  que  contra  episcopum  et  comune  Taurinense  proponere  voluerit.  Et 
si  comes  inde  justiciam  recipere  voluerit,  tunc  episcopus  et  comune  Taurinense  ei 
justiciam  facere  debent.  Et  si  episcopus  et  comune  Taurinense  illam  justiciam 
ei  facere  noluerint,  tunc  Carienses  et  Teslonenses  citra  Padum  et  ultra  Padum  debent 
adjuvare  comitem.  Si  voluerint  et  si  comes  illam  justiciam  recipere  noluerit,  tunc 
comune  Carii  et  Testone  non  debent  salire  supra  terram  episcopi,  nee  supra  terram 
hominum  et  comunis  Taurini,  nee  ullo  modo  eos  offendere  in  personis  nee  in  rebus 

P.  o.  24 


370  The  Burgundian  phase 

come  into  the  light  of  day,  and  fall  into  a  definite  scheme  of  policy. 
We  can  see  that,  unlike  Manfred  II  of  Saluzzo,  he  had  grasped  the 
significance  of  the  communal  movement  in  Piedmont,  and  was  prepared 
to  pursue  his  ambitions  by  working  in  concert  with  it.  This  is  the 
meaning  of  his  charters  to  Susa  and  Miradolo.  The  worst  grievance  of 
the  townsfolk  lay  in  the  arbitrary  exactions  and  tolls  of  their  feudal 
lords,  and  these  Thomas  replaced  by  fixed  and  reasonable  levies. 
Thus  secured  he  could  join  in  the  Piedmontese  wars,  not  very  heartily 
perhaps,  for  his  gains,  as  we  have  seen,  were  small,  but  still  enough  to 
enter  into  the  net  of  west  Lombard  politics.  His  gains,  too,  had  some 
worth ;  it  was  admitted  he  had  claims  on  Turin.  But  it  goes  without 
saying  that  the  clause,  only  to  be  enforced  by  a  renewal  of  the  war,  was 
a  dead  letter. 

With  his  prestige  reestablished  in  this  direction,  the  restless  Count 
bethought  him  of  recovering  the  Savoyard  influence  towards  the  south. 
When  (in  the  middle  of  June  1200)  he  reached  S.  Ambrogio  in  the  Val 
di  Susa^  on  his  return  from  a  sojourn  beyond  the  Alps",  he  found  an 
excellent  opportunity  for  intervention  ready  to  his  hand.  In  spite  of 
vain  attempts  at  a  truce,  the  war  between  Asti  and  Marquess  Boniface 
of  Montferrat  had  broken  out  more  fiercely  than  ever,  and  now  Alba 
was  energetically  aiding  the  Marquess  against  her  quondam  ally  and 
the  great  consorzeria  of  Manzano-Salmour^.  On  the  side  of  Alba  and 
Montferrat  stood  Manfred  II  of  Saluzzo.  Now  while  his  allies  were 
carrying  on  the  conflict  further  east,  Manfred  II  could  make  an  effort  to 
conquer  the  rebel  Cuneo.  He  hoped,  perhaps,  to  have  the  town 
isolated.  But  he  reckoned  without  his  northern  neighbour,  for  Count 
Thomas  made  an  incursion  towards  the  Stura  di  Demonte.  He  was 
not,  however,  very  earnest  in  his  zeal  for  Cuneo,  and  after  some 
successes  allowed  himself  to  be  bought  off.  Manfred  II  became  his 
vassal  for  the  border  townships  of  Fontanile  and  Roncaglia,  while  he 
ceded  at  the  same  time  his  overlordship  over  the  lords  of  Bernezzo,  who 
were  among  the  malcontent  nobles  close  to  Cuneo  itself.  The  question 
of  the  suzerainty  of  Boves,  just  to  the  south  of  Cuneo,  was  left  open. 
As  to  Cuneo  a  separate  treaty  on  the  nth  November  was  concluded  by 

eorum,  nisi  forte  terram  comitis  defendendo,  quam  liceat  eis  defendere  si  voluerint." 
On  the  treaty  and  war  cf.  Hellmann,  pp.  79-80,  and  Gabotto,  U Abazia...di  Pinerolo, 
B.S.S.S.  I.  132-3.  Herr  Hellmann  attributes  the  recovery  of  Avigliana  by  Thomas 
to  this  war ;  but  Thomas  already  held  Miradolo  and  Rivalta,  well  beyond  Avigliana, 
in  1 197. 

^  Car.  Sup.  L.  (Collegno,  Certose  del  Fietuonte,  Misc.  stor.  ital.,  ser.  iii.  Vol.  i. 
Doc.  xix.). 

-  I  infer  this  from  Car.  Reg.  cccxcix.  (5  March  1200),  which  deals  with  a 
Burgundian  locality.     [But  is  the  year  really  1201?] 

3  Rigestum...Albe,  B.S.S.S.  xx.  p.  23. 


Thomas'  first  war  with  Saluzzo  371 

Manfred  II  with  the  town.  It  was  agreed  that  the  born  vassals  of  the 
Marquess  should  continue  individually  to  fulfil  their  feudal  obligations, 
and  that  all  Cuneese,  but  not  as  vassals,  should  serve  in  his  cavalcatae\ 
Nothing  is  more  interesting  in  this  medieval  synoecismus,  than  to  see 
how  individual  personal  obligations  to  and  preexisting  rights  of  the 
lords  of  the  inhabitants  were  allowed  to  subsist  in  the  new  state,  where 
they  did  not  interfere  with  the  magistrates'  public  jurisdiction ^  And 
yet  the  Commune  was  a  distinct  entity,  with  a  control  over  the  town's 
policy  and  government  which  amounted  to  autonomy.  The  ancient 
lords'  rights  were  few  and  partial ;  those  of  the  Commune  drew  a  living 
force  from  the  sentiments  of  self-government  and  local  cohesion. 

The  peace  of  Manfred  II  with  Cuneo,  like  the  other  peaces  and 
truces  of  the  formless,  shifting  struggle,  had  no  permanence  in  it.  But 
of  the  last  six  years  of  the  war  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  give  an  account 
in  the  history  of  Savoy,  for  Count  Thomas  disappears  again  beyond  the 
Alps  to  take  part  in  Burgundian  wars.  There  need  only  be  noticed 
two  events  of  more  lasting  importance  than  most  of  the  bewildering 
alliances,  the  unkept  pledges,  the  raids  and  the  turns  and  twists  of 
momentary  schemes  which  make  up  its  history.  The  first  is  the 
departure  of  Boniface  of  Montferrat  on  the  Fourth  Crusade.  After 
1202  he  disappears  from  Piedmontese  history  to  acquire  what  glory  or 
disgrace  the  capture  of  Constantinople  could  give  ;  and  the  adventures 
of  the  crusade  which  brought  him  the  kingdom  of  Thessalonica  must 
have  been  a  welcome  change  for  his  petty  and  hampered  marquessate, 
oppressed  by  one,  and  that  not  the  greatest,  of  Lombard  cities.  The 
second  event  is  the  regrouping  of  the  south  Piedmontese  political  system 
which  was  completed  by  September  1204.  In  that  month^  an  alliance 
was  formed  against  Asti  by  William  VI,  the  new  Marquess  of  Montferrat, 
the  Marquess  Manfred  II  of  Saluzzo  and  other  lesser  Aleramids, 
the  nobles  of  the  Astigiano  and  the  great  consorzeria  of  Manzano- 
Salmour,  and  the  city  of  Alba.  To  the  coalition  was  joined  Alessandria, 
the  ally  of  Alba  by  a  special  treaty*.  On  Asti's  side  there  were  ranged 
Cuneo  and  the  other  new-founded  Commune  of  Mondovi.  Here  we 
have  the  desire  for  autonomy  and  commercial  rivalry  as  the  connecting 
link  between  so  many  diverse  allies.  Common  interests  against  Mont- 
ferrat could  not  hold  Asti  and  Alessandria  together,  nor  would  Alba 
ever  consent  to  submit  willingly  to  her  great  neighbour  in  spite  of  the 
common  danger  they  were  in  from  the  nobles  of  their  contadi.     But 

^  For  the  grounds  of  this  reconstruction  see  below,  App.  i  to  this  section. 
2  Cf.  above,  pp.  361,  368. 

=*  Reg.  March.  Saluzzo,  B.S.S.S.  xvi.  No.  151  {Rig....Albe,  B.S.S.S.  XX.  p.  35). 
*  Rig....Albe,  B.S.S.S.  XX.  p.  i.     This  treaty  of  Alba  and  Alessandria  is  dated 
3  Sept.  1103. 

24—2 


372  The  Burgundian  phase 

Asti's  predominating  power  which  provoked  the  coalition  was  also 
sufficient  to  defeat  it  In  1206  the  war  was  already  finding  its  end  in 
a  series  of  treaties.  Asti  had  gained  the  day,  but  she  had  perceived 
the  incurable  nature  of  the  breach  between  her  and  her  neighbour- 
communes  and  began  henceforward  in  her  turn  to  court  the  greater 
feudatories  ^ 

No  doubt  Count  Thomas  of  Savoy  did  not  cease  to  keep  these 
Italian  broils  under  close  observation,  but  for  some  years  he  was  mainly 
concerned  with  the  north.  His  predecessors,  under  the  influence  of 
their  position  astride  of  the  Alps,  had  all  shown  this  alternation  of 
interests,  but  in  the  active  and  ceaselessly  ambitious  Thomas  the 
tendency  is  extremely  marked.  And  we  now  enter  on  a  long  Burgundian 
season  in  his  life.  The  peace  of  the  land  on  either  side  the  Jura 
range  had  been  further  disturbed  by  the  death  of  the  Hohenstaufen 
Otto  of  Franche  Comte  in  1201,  who  had  left  an  only  daughter, 
Beatrice.  The  child's  claims  were  contested  by  Stephen  II,  Count  of 
Auxonne,  the  chief  of  her  maternal  kindred,  the  Anscarids ;  and  her 
uncle,  the  King  of  the  Romans,  Philip  II,  had  intervened  in  her  favour 
successfully  in  1202.  Now  this  turn  of  events  was  not,  perhaps, 
welcome  to  Thomas  of  Savoy.  In  the  civil  war  between  the  Hohen- 
staufen Philip  and  the  Guelf  Otto  IV  for  the  succession  to  the  Empire, 
which  began  on  Henry  VI's  death  in  1197,  we  may  suspect  that  at  least 
he  did  not  support  the  Hohenstaufen  candidate.  True  it  is  that 
Archbishop  Aymon  of  Tarentaise  had  crowned  King  Philip,  but  that 
prelate  was  now  an  independent  ruler  under  the  Empire.  So  perhaps 
we  may  connect  with  Philip's  prosperity  an  attack  which  his  adherent, 
Duke  Berthold  V  of  Zahringen,  was  now  apparently  able  to  make  on 
Savoy.  The  Duke  had  presumably  secured  a  partial  triumph  over  his 
revolted  Vaudois  subjects,  and  perhaps  the  prosecution  of  the  feuds 
with  the  Genevois^,  which  arose  therefrom,  combined  with  some  royal 
commission  to  secure  the  Great  St  Bernard  for  an  Italian  campaign  to 
make  him  proceed  against  Thomas.  His  rights  as  Rector  of  Burgundy 
might  give  some  legal  colour  to  his  action^. 

^  See  on  the  war  and  its  conclusion,  Bertano,  op.  cit.  pp.  71-99.  The  new 
communes  now  numbered  four,  Savigliano,  Mondovi,  Romanisio  and  Cuneo,  all 
of  which  admitted,  in  form  at  least,  some  rights  of  their  ancient  lords,  whose 
demesne  or  suzerain  rights  had  extended  over  them.  All  of  them  from  this  time 
are  rapidly  alienated  from  Asti,  both  for  her  encroachments  on  them  and  for  her 
alliance  with  their  enemies,  the  great  feudatories. 

^  In  this  connection  it  is  important  to  remember  that,  in  liis  new  acquisition  of 
Moudon  in  Vaud  (see  below,  p.  376,  n.  3),  Thomas  was  partially  succeeding  to  claims 
of  his  father-in-law,  William  of  the  Genevois.  Probably  this  explains  his  original 
entrance  on  the  war. 

3  See  Garrard,  Le  Combat  de  Chilian,  M.D.R.  ser.  11.  Vol.  i.  pp.  259,  283.     Gf. 


The  combat  of  Chillon  373 

However  that  may  be,  it  would  seem  that  in  1203,  in  concert  with 
the  Bishop  of  Lausanne,  he  attempted  to  force  his  way  into  Chablais 
round  the  end  of  the  Lake  of  Geneva.  The  castle  of  Blonay,  held  by 
vassals  of  Savoy,  was  captured,  and  shortly  after  he  fought  a  battle  with 
Count  Thomas  himself  by  the  latter's  demesne-castle  of  Chillon,  com- 
manding the  narrow  strip  of  land  between  the  mountains  and  the  lake. 
The  incidents  of  that  feat  of  arms  are  only  transmitted  to  us  in  the 
hazy  outlines  of  a  misdated  legend  in  the  Chroniques  of  Savoy,  but  it 
would  seem  that  the  Savoyard  won  an  epical  victory.  The  Duke 
himself  and  his  chief  Vaudois  vassals  are  said  to  have  been  made 
prisoners,  and  Thomas  in  more  prosaic  fact  was  able  to  make  a  counter- 
invasion  of  the  lands  north  of  the  lake.  The  Bishop  of  Lausanne  lost 
two  castles  in  the  war,  and  the  Count  crowned  his  success  by  the 
capture,  perhaps  the  willing  surrender,  of  the  town  of  Moudon  in  the 
centre  of  Vaud.  It  is  possible  that  his  conquests  extended  even  further, 
and  that  he  waged  victorious  war  on  the  frontiers  of  Bugey\  but  in 
January  1205  overtures  were  probably  being  already  made  for  peace. 
Philip  might  well  try  to  conciliate  the  victorious  Count,  and  in  that 
month  the  Bishop  of  Belley,  a  likely  emissary,  was  certainly  at  the  royal 
Court.  Be  that  as  it  may,  in  May  and  June  1207  Thomas  himself 
attended  King  Philip  at  Basel,  where  there  appeared  also  Berthold  V, 
and  scored  a  brilliant  diplomatic  success.  In  return  we  may  suppose 
for  his  adhesion  to  the  Hohenstaufen  and  for  his  promised  support 
in  Italy,  on  the  ist  of  June  he  not  only  received  formal  investiture  of 
his  hereditary  dominions,  but  gained  the   most   striking  new  grants*. 

also  Hellmann,  pp.  80-85.  I  think  neither  author  points  out  that  the  clue  to 
Thomas'  inten'ention  in  the  war  is  to  be  found  in  his  relation  to  William  of  the 
Genevois.  That  Thomas  was  not  at  first  for  the  Hohenstaufen  king  may  be  inferred 
from  the  great  concessions  he  obtained  on  attending  his  court  in  1207  (see  below; 
cf.  Foumier,  p.  93).  For  the  opposite  view  see  Hellmann,  loc.  cit.  But  the  course 
of  Thomas'  early  Italian  policy,  as  sketched  above,  is  directed  against  the  Hohen- 
staufen party.  As  against  Hellmann,  I  also  adopt  the  view  of  two  wars  between 
Berthold  V  and  Thomas,  of  which  the  first  would  end  about  1206  (see  Carrard, 
op.  cit.  p.  270),  for  King  Philip  was  on  good  terms  with  Berthold  V  and  would 
never  grant  away  the  latter's  town  of  Moudon  without  some  sort  of  assent  from  him. 
That  the  first  war  did  not  begin  before  1201  is  made  likely  by  the  Count's  Italian 
preoccupations  and  the  little  we  know  of  his  itinerary.     Cf.  also  below,  App.  11. 

1  That  is  against  the  Sires  de  Thoire,  in  alliance  with  the  Sire  de  Coligny.  See 
below,  p.  377. 

2  Car.  Sup.  LV.  (Bohmer-Ficker,  /?eg:  146)  and  B.-F.  147  show  Thomas  heading 
list  of  witnessing  Counts  after  Berthold  V  on  the  28th  May  1207.  Car.  J?e£^.  CDXVII. 
(B.-F.  148,  which  should  be  identical  with  B.-F.  149  ;  M.H.P.  Chart.  I.  1137)  is  the 
grant.  "  Karissimus  consanguineus  noster  Thomas  comes  Sabaudiae  apud  Basileam 
sub  frequentia  principum  et  multorum  imperii  fidelium  feudum  suum  quod  per  suc- 
cessionem  a  suis  progenitoribus  ad  ipsum  devolutum  erat  de  manu  nostra  recepit. 
Nosque   eum  juxta  priscam    imperii    consuetudinem  de   universis   bonis   illis   prout 


374  The  Burgundian  phase 

As  far  as  a  diploma  of  the  King  of  the  Romans  could  effect  it,  the 
towns  of  Moudon  in  Vaud,  and  of  Chieri  and  Testona  in  Lombardy 
were  delivered  over  to  the  Count  of  Savoy.  The  latter  part  of  the 
concession  must  have  been  merely  intended  as  grounds  for  a  future  war 
of  conquest,  but  Moudon  was  already  in  the  Count's  hands'. 

Berthold  V  of  Zahringen  had  not  witnessed  the  imperial  diploma, 
nor  had  the  Bishop  Roger  of  Lausanne.  The  Duke  was  the  Bishop's 
advocate  and  as  in  the  first  war  they  now  acted  together.  It  cannot 
have  been  long  after  King  Philip's  charter  that  they  and  Thomas  were 
again  at  odds.  Perhaps  Philip's  murder  in  June  1208  freed  the  hands 
of  the  rivals.  On  the  day  of  the  crime  Beatrice,  the  heiress  of  Franche 
Comte,  married  Otto  Duke  of  Meran,  and  the  Anscarid  Count 
Stephen  II  of  Auxonne,  supported  by  Berthold  V  of  Zahringen  and 
Eudes  III  of  French  Burgundy,  at  once  broke  with  the  new  dynasty. 
We  can  hardly  dissociate  this  contest  from  the  war  between  Zahringen 
and  Savoy  and  thus  may  give  Count  Thomas  as  an  ally  of  the  Duke  of 
Meran ^.     The  strife,  so  far  as  Thomas  was  concerned,  seems  to  have 

principum  et  curiae  nostrae  dictavit  sententia  per  tria  vexilla  investivimus.  Pre- 
terea...feudo  suo  quod  prius  ab  imperio  tenuit  addimus ;  sibi  concedimus...villam 
de  Kario  necnon  villam  de  Testona  cum  omnibus  appendiciis  et  tenementis  earum 
et  cum  omni  jure  et  integritate,  quemadmodum  ad  imperium  spectare  dignoscuntur.... 
Comes  Sabaudiae  castrum  Melduni  a  nobis  recepit  in  feudo  et  nos...promisimus  in 
ipso  castro...eum  manutenere  et  contra  omnem  hominem  defensare...precipimus  ut 
nulli  unquam  persone...ecclesiastice  sive  seculari  licitum  sit...consanguineum  nostrum 
in  hac  nostra  donatione...molestare."  What  were  the  fiefs  represented  by  the  three 
vexillal  I  imagine  the  March  of  Italy  would  be  one,  the  main  part  of  his  Burgundian 
"  comitatus  "  the  second,  and  Chablais  and  Ao.sta,  which  a  little  later  we  find  in  a 
special  position,  were  the  third.  Legends  gathered  round  the  investiture  later,  when 
it  was  attributed  to  Thomas'  son,  Peter  II  {Chroniques  de  Savoye,  M.H.P.  11.  172). 
The  Count  appeared  somewhat  melodramatically  half  in  mail,  half  in  silk  and  cloth 
of  gold  at  the  imperial  court,  and  proffered  his  unsheathed  sword  when  the  Chancellor 
required  the  title-deeds  of  his  fiefs.  For  this  date  the  Chroniqiies'  authority  is  still 
feeble,  but  a  certain  flourish  of  its  pride  was  quite  in  the  manners  of  the  time,  and  in 
daily  life  Thomas  kept  his  sword  unsheathed  against  all  comers.  Cf.  App.  II  to  this 
section  below  on  the  true  dating  of  the  legend. 

^  See,  for  a  discussion  of  the  grounds  for  this  reconstruction  of  the  first  war  with 
Zahringen,  Appendix  11  to  this  section. 

^  Fournier,  op.  cit.  p.  95.  It  is  probably  to  the  early  months  of  1208,  before 
King  Philip's  murder,  that  we  may  ascribe  Car.  Reg.  CDXXi.  (Guichenon,  Preuves, 
p.  51),  where  Thomas  declares  he  is  about  to  join  the  Albigensian  Crusade— "volens 
ad  Dei  servitium  apud  Albigens.  iter  incipere  ac  perficere."  He  would  accompany 
his  brother-in-law  William  of  the  Genevois  in  that  year  (LuUin  et  Lefort,  Peg.  Gen. 
No.  508)  and  then  be  recalled  by  the  outbreak  of  the  war  in  the  north,  and  thus  the 
absence  of  any  mention  of  him  in  the  Chronicles  of  the  Crusade  would  be  accounted 
for.  The  late  Savoyard  chronicler  Champier  (Menabrea,  Origines  fiodales,  pp.  535-6) 
indeed  refers  to  a  Tolosan  Chronicle  which  would  name  him,  but  I  cannot  find  any 
such  passage,  nor  is  he  referred  to  in  Vic  et  Vaissette,  Hist,  de  Languedoc,  VI.,  vil., 


The  final  peace  with  Zahringen  375 

been  carried  on  through  all  the  land  north  of  the  Lake  of  Geneva  from 
the  Jura  to  the  Vallais.  At  last  in  121 1  Berthold,  who  had  failed 
to  enter  his  foe's  territories  in  the  earlier  war  by  way  of  Chillon,  resolved 
to  force  a  way  through  the  upper  Vallais.  Since  Amadeus  III  had 
retired  from  Leuk  and  Naters  German  immigrants  had  taken  possession 
of  the  valley  as  far  down  as  Gampel*,  and  the  Duke  might  hope  that 
they  would  side  with  him  through  racial  feeling.  But  he  was  met  near 
Ulrichen,  only  just  across  the  Grimsel  Pass,  by  the  Vallesians  and 
doubtless  by  Count  Thomas  himself  The  day  of  Chillon  was  repeated 
in  a  crushing  defeat  of  the  invader-.  Berthold  hardly  escaped  beyond 
the  mountains,  and  we  may  see  his  acceptance  of  established  facts  in 
his  treaty  with  Count  Thomas  at  Hautcret  Abbey  on  the  19th  of 
October  1211^.  There  had  been  some  question,  it  would  seem,  of  his 
surrendering  to  the  Count  his  obsolete  claim  to  invest  the  Bishop 
of  Geneva  with  his  regalia^  but  this  was  abandoned  on  the  Bishop's 
protest^,  and  the  final  peace  seems  only  to  have  ceded  Moudon  and 
Romont  to  Savoy*.  Berthold,  the  new  Bishop  of  Lausanne,  was  still 
recalcitrant,  but  his  opposition  could  be  dealt  with  later  by  slow  pressure. 
Just  before  this  treaty,  on  the  i8th  October,  peace  had  been  made 
between  the  rivals  in  Franche  Comte,  leaving  the  countship  to  Otto  of 

VIII.  Other  possible  years  for  an  Albigensian  Crusade  are  \1^^  and  1219.  In  1215, 
when  Louis  of  France  intervened  for  the  first  time,  Thomas  was  engaged  in  Italy. 
But  the  first  crusading  fervour  of  1208-9  seems  the  right  date  since  the  political 
motives,  which  entered  more  and  more  into  the  later  Albigensian  Crusades,  were  not 
those  which  would  attract  Thomas.  He  would  be  by  no  means  anxious  to  see  a 
greater  power  like  the  heir  of  France  joining  in  this  Mediterranean  warfare. 
^  Grober,  Grundriss  der  romanischen  Philologie,  i.  722. 

2  Livre  de  la  Val  Illiez  (M.D.R.  xxix.  p.  166).  "  Bertoldus  dux  Zerinsie,  filius 
Conradi  imperatoris  {sic),  cum  magna  peditum  et  equitum  millitia  Vallesium  ingressus, 
prope  villam  Gestheinon  in  deseno  Gomesiano,  cruenta  caede  per  Vallesios  cesus, 
illucque  cum  ejus  exercitu  18000  occubuit  et  intemptus,  nullis  ex  suis  militibus 
superstitibus  remanentibus,  exceptis  minimis  et  paucis  aliis  voluntarie  remissis  et 
qui  fuge  praesidium  occupaverant.  12 11."  The  legendary  character  of  this  account 
does  not  take  from  the  general  fact  of  a  crushing  defeat,  as  a  memorial  of  which  a 
cross  was  set  up.     See  Hellmann,  p.  83,  n.  5. 

3  Car.  J^eg.  CDXXXil.  {Cari.  Laus.  M.D.R.  vi.  421):  "  1211,  xv.  Kal.  Nov. 
pacificati  sunt  Dux  Bertoldus  et  comes  Maurian.  Tomas  juxta  cenobium  de  Alcrest." 

*  Car.  Reg.  CDXxx.  (cDXXXi.  duplicate)  (Spon,  Hist,  de  Geneve,  11.  p.  49),  dated 
14  Oct.  121 1  at  Lugrin  in  New-Chablais :  "  Bernardus  Gebennensis  episcopus  in 
nostra  presentia...per  fidelilatem  requisivit  a  comite  Mauriannensi  Thoma  et  prohibuit 
et  contradixit...ne  super  regalibus  Gebennensibus  pacem  faceret,  et  ne  eadem  regalia, 
etiamsi  darentur  illi,  reciperet,  quia  erant  de  jure  ecclesie  Gebennensis.  Ipse  vero 
comes  respondit,  quod  super  regalibus  nunquam  moveret  causam  contra  ecclesiam 
Gebennensem,  nee  acciperet  sive  reciperet  jus  ecclesie  Gebennensis." 

'  Moudon  henceforth  is  in  Thomas'  possession.  His  son,  Peter,  then  just  suc- 
ceeded to  his  elder  brother  Aymon,  calls  himself  Count  of  Romont  on  23  June  1240 
(Car.  Keg.  DCXlil.;  Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  73). 


T^yG  The  Burgundian  phase 

Meran,  but  otherwise  favourable  to  the  Anscarids^  Obviously  the  two 
wars  were  waged  and  concluded  in  concert. 

How  long  it  took  to  effect  a  reconciliation  with  the  Bishop  is  hard 
to  say,  for  the  document  of  the  accord  is  undated.  One  difficulty  lay 
in  the  treatment  of  the  lords  of  Blonay,  who  held  of  both  combatants, 
and,  perhaps  in  the  endeavour  to  keep  their  feudal  obligations,  had 
chosen  different  sides  in  the  struggle.  Signs  of  a  renewal  of  friendly 
relations  are  already  visible  in  1 2 1 2  and  perhaps  we  may  put  down  the 
final  accord  to  the  year  1215'^.  By  it  the  Bishop  invested  the  Count 
with  the  Count  of  the  Genevois'  ancient  fief  in  Moudon,  and  each  party 
forgave  his  rebel  lord  of  Blonay^ 

The  Count  might  well  be  satisfied  with  the  success  of  his  Burgundian 
schemes  in  these  years.  VVe  can  hardly  doubt  that  the  right  of 
investing  the  Bishop  of  Sion  had  already  been  recovered''.  For  the 
first  time  the  banner  of  Savoy  had  been  planted  to  the  north  of  Lake 
Geneva,  and  her  dominions  there,  maintained  by  a  far-sighted  alliance 
of  Prince  and  bourgeoisie,  were  soon  to  be  enlarged  by  Thomas'  son 

^  Bohmer-Winkelmann,  Reg.  No.  10728.  Cf.  Fournier,  op.  cit.  pp.  95-6.  Hell- 
mann,  p.  82,  is  somewhat  confused  in  the  matter  of  the  war  in  Franche  Comte. 

^  See  Carrard,  op.  cit.  p.  272.  21  Aug.  1212  Henry  de  Blonay  was  reconciled 
with  the  Chapter  of  Lausanne  at  Evian  in  New-Chablais  {Cart.  Laus.,  M.D.R.  vi. 
422),  and  in  12 15  the  Bishop  exercises  jurisdiction  with  regard  to  Thomas'  new-founded 
town  of  Villeneuve  (id.  xn.,  Hautcret,  p.  52). 

^  Car.  Reg.  CDLXi.  (M.D.R.  Ser.  Ii.  Vol.  I.  296  ff.).  The  treaty  consists  of  three 
documents,  (i)  The  undated  concord,  which  M.  Carrard  (op.  cit.  p.  272)  shows  must 
be  some  time  earlier  than  the  others,  since  Thomas  reserves  the  suzerains  he  has 
hodie  in  it,  whereas  he  reserves  the  suzerains  he  had  tunc  in  the  others.  But  I 
cannot  follow  M.  Carrard  in  thinking  Thomas  had  escaped  from  some  vassalage  in 
the  meantime ;  he  had  surely  accepted  some  new  lord.  After  all  the  phrase  may 
have  been  merely  inserted  for  legal  certainty,  (ii)  The  Bishop's  letters  patent,  3  July 
12 19,  confirming  the  treaty,  (iii)  The  Count's  do.  Both  given  from  Burier  near 
Montreux.  The  important  clauses  are:  from  (i) :  "quicquid...episcopus  per  probos 
et  ydoneos  homines  probare  poterit  quod  comites  Gebenenses  olim  in  castro  Meduni 
a  predecessoribus  suis  recognoverunt,  ipse  comes  et  successores  sui  recognoscunt 
ab  ipso  Lausan.  episcopo...et  ipse  hominum  ei  faciet  salva  fidelitate  omnium 
dominorum  quos  hodie  habet.  ...Nulli  homines  proprii  ecclesie  recipientur  pro  habita- 
toribus  in  castro  Meduni  niside  voluntate.-.episcopi.  Homines  autem  quos...episcopo 
(sic)  in  castro  Meduni  se  habere  asserit,  eo  modo  quo  predecessores  sui  habuerunt, 
habeat...nunquam  de  cetero  neque  comiti  neque  successoribus  suis  pro  aliqua  recogni- 
tione  placiti  vel  mutagii  possit  aliquid  exigere...episcopo  (sic)  vel  sui  successores.... 
Volumus  quod  episcopo  (sic)  pacem  et  guerram  de  Meduno  facere  possit  ad  jura 
ecclesie  defendenda."  From  (ii) :  "Si... idem  castrum  caperetur,  nos  non  faceremus 
pacem  vel  treugas  sine  voluntate  dicti  comitis.  Comes  vero  tenetur  recipere  dictum 
feodum  Lausanne  in  curia  episcopali  ab  episcopo,  nisi  forte  fecerit  ei  gratiam  episcopo 
{sic)  alibi  recipiendi." 

*  For  the  battle  with  Berthold  V  in  121 1  was  fought  at  the  very  end  of  the 
Bishop's  county,  and  the  Bishop,  Landric  of  Sion,  is  present  with  Thomas  in  12 19  at 
Burier  and  Villefranche  (Car.  Reg.  CDLXii.  M.H.P.  Chart,  i.  1258). 


Civil  war  in  the  Val  d'Aosta  2)11 

into  the  "  Barony  of  Vaud."  In  Bugey,  besides  obtaining  the  castle  of 
Cornillon  and  its  dependencies,  he  had  enforced  in  1206  the  homage  of 
its  lord  for  the  whole  barony  of  New-Coligny,  with  the  addition  of  two 
castles  near  Nantua,  which  had  belonged  to  the  Sires  de  Thoire\  Since 
he  also  had  the  homage  of  the  Sire  de  Beaujeu  for  all  his  lands  east  of 
Saone  within  the  Empire^,  this  meant  he  was  acknowledged  suzerain  of 
both  banks  of  the  Ain  and  of  the  strip  along  the  north  bank  of  the 
Rhone  towards  Lyons.  I  have  already  remarked  on  the  increase  of 
strength  which  these  gains  gave  to  Savoy  for  the  conquest  of  Italy. 
Here  may  be  emphasized  their  permanent  effect  on  political  geography. 
Savoy,  under  its  powerful  Dukes,  and  Franche  Comte  under  Austria 
and  Spain,  long  barred  the  further  progress  of  France  to  the  East  in 
this  quarter.  They  thus  preserved,  unwillingly  enough,  Suisse  Romande 
as  a  separate  province  of  French  nationality,  and  helped,  to  their  own 
loss  at  times,  in  building  up  the  unique  Swiss  nation. 

While  Thomas  was  pursuing  this  spirited  foreign  policy,  he  was 
neither  inactive  nor  untroubled  in  the  domestic  affairs  of  Savoy.  The 
scene  of  disturbance  was  the  Val  d'Aosta.  There  the  charter  to  the 
city  had  produced  no  peace ^.  The  greater  barons,  headed  by  Viscount 
Boso,  not  only  continued  the  sharpness  of  their  oppression  on  the 
country-side,  but  inflicted  new  injuries  on  the  citizens.  The  exasperation 
of  their  victims  produced  a  new  phenomenon  in  the  valley.  Citizens, 
tenants  in  chivalry,  dientes  (analogous  to  the  German  DienstmlmnerY 
and  villeins,  formed  a  new  defensive  association  regardless  of  their 
feudal  ties  or  feudal  status.  Civil  war  must  have  followed  such  a  pact, 
and  in  that  war  it  is  clear  that  in  spite  of  the  ferocity  of  the  baronial 
party,  who  even  mutilated  their  prisoners,  the  new  organization  more 

*  Car.  Reg.  CDXili.  (Du  Bouchet,  Preuves  de  Chistoire  de  la  maison  de  Coligny, 
p.  41),  Extrait  de  la  Chamb>-e  des  Comptes  de  Savoie,  "  Litterae  sub  data  ii  Junii 
MCCVi.  quibus  dominus  Guillelmus  de  Coloniaco  fecit  homagium  ligium  illustri 
domino  Thomae  Sabaudiae  et  Maurianae  comiti,  et  accepit  ab  eo  in  feodum  honorem 
Coloniaci  Novi,  cum  dependentiis,  et  promisit  feodum  illud  augere  de  feudis  cas- 
trorum  Brionis  et  Rubeimontis  et  de  omni  eo  quod  acquisivit  a  liberis  domini 
Humberti  de  Toria." 

^  Wurstemberger,  iv.  No.  670,  dated  11  Dec.  1264,  in  an  inquisition  on  the 
rights  of  Savoy  over  Beaujeu,  it  is  declared  that  the  homage  was  due  c.  1233  for  all 
Beaujeu's  lands  east  of  the  Saone,  and  Peter  de  Boges  adds  "quod  audivit  eandem 
tieri  recognitionem  a  Guichardo  patre  dicti  Humberti  Bellijoci,  ad  Burgum  S.  Dal- 
masium,  Thome  patri  tunc  comiti  Sabaudie."  The  date  of  this  homage  could  well 
be  1200,  1 2 13,  1215  or  1230,  in  all  of  which  years  Thomas  was  close  to  Borgo 
S.  Dalmazzo.  Since  Guichard  IV  of  Beaujeu  died  in  1216  (Guigue,  in  de  la  Mure, 
Dtus  de  Bourbon,  in.  Suppl.  p.  16),  we  must  choose  one  of  the  earlier  years,  most 
likely  1213,  when  Thomas'  power  was  at  its  height. 

•*  See  above,  pp.  359-60. 

•*  See  below,  Cap.  vi. 


^yS  The  Burgundian  phase 

than  held  its  own.  In  April  1206  the  Count  arrived  as  peacemaker, 
and  had  no  hesitation  in  taking  the  citizens'  and  impares'  side.  Viscount 
Boso's  opposition  was  bought  off  by  the  grant  of  the  Count's  own 
demesne-castle  of  Ville  at  Challant^  But  the  gains  of  the  new  League 
were  far  greater.  It  was  recognized,  given  public  authority  and  taken 
under  the  Count's  special  protection.  A  new  extra  fine  was  added  to 
the  customary  mulcts  for  offences  against  its  members,  and  the  mutilation 
of  the  latter  was  punished  with  death. 

There  is  no  mistaking  the  significance  of  all  this.  The  Count  was 
slowly  gaining  power  over  the  prepotent  barons,  by  championing  the 
men  of  middle  rank,  citizens,  clergy,  knights  and  well-to-do  rustics. 
But  the  change  was  mainly  due  to  the  circumstance  that  anarchic 
feudalism  had  overstrained  the  moral  ties  on  which  much  of  its  power 
rested.  It  had  exploited  too  far  the  fertile,  trading  valley,  and  brought 
about  a  Nemesis.  For  what  could  be  more  unfeudal  in  character  than 
the  new  league,  made  up  as  it  was  of  every  class  in  society  save  the 
baronage,  captained  by  citizen-consuls,  and  admitting  its  members  freely 
to  equality  on  the  sole  ground  of  allegiance  to  the  sovran  count^? 

It  is  hard  to  trace  a  single  dominating  policy  or  a  main  stream  of 
events  in  the  first  period  of  Count  Thomas'  history,  as  I  have  just 
narrated  it.  His  object  seems  to  have  been  to  restore  the  prestige  and 
dominion  of  his  House,  wherever  in  its  straggling  territory  they  had 

^  Car.  J^eg.  CDXVi.     See  App.  of  Documents,  No.  I. 

^  The  account  above  is  drawn  from  the  only  source,  an  undated  charter  of  Thomas 
(Car.  /^eg.  cdlvi.;  Due,  Cartul.  de  V^veche  d'Aoste,  Misc.  stor.  ital.  xxiii.  p.  283). 
I  have  dated  it  by  the  grant  to  Viscount  Boso  of  the  castle  of  Ville,  which  was  made 
in  April  1206.  But  it  is  always  possible  that  Ville  was  granted  as  compensation  for 
the  first  charter  to  Aosta  (see  above,  pp.  359-60) ;  and  thus  the  present  charter  would 
belong  to  1212  or  even  later.  The  more  important  passages  are  as  follows:  "Cum 
inter  vassallos  et  dominum  concertatio  sit  honestissima  beneficiis  vincere  beneficia,  ne 
de  cetero  status  civitatis  Auguste  revocetur  in  dubium...ego  Thomas. ..ea  que  subter 
inserta  sunt  scripto  olim  facto  addicio :  viz.  forensecos  milites,  clientes  et  rusticos  qui 
juraverunt  cum  hominibus  civibus  Augustensibus,  sicut  predictos  cives  nostros,  in 
eadem  protectione  et  defensione  recipimus....Hoc  idem  facimus  de  eis  qui  in  posterum 
civibus  nostris  se  sociaverint.  Clericos  vero  regulares  et  seculares  sub  eadem  pro- 
tectione recipimus.     Si  quis  alicui  de  juratis  nostris  menbrum  mutilaverit  vel  de- 

bilitaverit,  eadem  pena  multetur  qua  condempnatur  ille  qui  hominem  interfecit 

Si  quis  contra  episcopatum,  nos,  vel  jura  commitatus  [sic)  leserit,  precedente  comite 
vel  ejus  honesto  nuntio,  jurati  cum  expenssis  {sic)  propriis  et  pro  viribus  suis  recu- 

perabunt  et  vindicabunt Comes  vero  eodem  jure  eadem  ratione  juratis  tenetur  jura 

sua  defendere  per  totum  comitatum  pro  viribus  suis,  et... omnibus  lesis  dapna  {sic)  sua 
prius  emendari  debent,  postea  offenssores  {sic)  dampno  et  pena  dicta  multari ;  de  XXV 
solidis,  X  sunt  comitis,  X  lesi  et  v  consulum.  Si  quis  vero  juratos  vel  res  eorum 
ofTenderit,  securus  ad  civitatem  non  veniat.  Si  vero  ibi  inventus  fuerit,  per  consules 
vel  per  officiales  vel  ad  ultimum  per  cives  detineatur,  ut  qui  stultus  fuit  in  culpa, 
sapiens  sit  in  pena." 


Evidence  for  the  first  Saluzzan  war  379 

been  damaged.  Thus  we  find  him  in  Italy  enforcing  as  far  as  he  can 
his  claims  on  Turin,  and  intervening  with  little  cause  in  Saluzzo ;  in 
Bugey  he  steadily  presses  on  the  lesser  magnates  round  his  own  land ; 
in  Vaud  he  accepts  the  challenge  of  the  Rector  of  Burgundy  and 
defeats  him.  There  and  in  Aosta  he  has  already  made  his  alliance  with 
the  bourgeoisie,  and  there,  too,  in  a  way  he  champions  the  Romance- 
speaking  population  against  German  aggression,  being  thus,  if  it  is  not 
too  fanciful  an  analogy,  the  prototype  of  the  latest  scions  of  his  race. 


APPENDIX   I. 

The  narrative  of  Count  Thomas'  first  war  with  Saluzzo  in  1200 
is  reconstructed  from  but  slight  evidence.  Hellmann  expressly  (p.  75) 
and  Bertano  by  implication  (pp.  86-93)  have  held  that  Count  Thomas 
had  no  share  in  these  wars  :  Gabotto  on  the  other  hand  has  considered 
{L'Abazia...di  Pinerolo,  pp.  133-4),  on  the  strength  of  a  passage  of 
Gioffredo  della  Chiesa  quoted  below,  that  Thomas  was  concerned  in  the 
foundation  of  Cuneo  1198,  but  the  suggested  scheme  of  events  and 
collection  of  evidence  have  not,  I  believe,  been  made.  The  evidence 
is  as  follows,  (i)  G.  della  Chiesa  {Cron.  di  Saluzzo,  M.H.P.  Script,  iii. 
885)  says  :  "  Nel  1 200,  essendo  stato  la  guerra  dal  Marchexe  (Manfred  II) 
al  Conte  dy  Savoya,  per  la  quale  il  Conte  havia  tolto  qualche  cossa  al 
Marchexe,  se  conduceno  a  fare  una  pace  in  questa  forma,  che  li  homini 
dy  Quaranta  debano  fare  la  fidelita  al  Marchexe  come  erano  solity  per 
inanty  ad  esso  proprio  et  ancho  a  suo  padre  ;  fu  ancho  fatto  el  simile 
dy  Brusaporcello,  qual  loco  el  Marchese  havia  aquistato  quelo  anno 
medemo  da  Manfredo,  Henrigo  et  Ansermo  de  Signory  de  Buscha." 
Now  G.  della  Chiesa  is  an  admirable  compiler,  with  access  to  lost 
material,  but  he  admits  legendary,  forged  and  unfounded  material  with 
regard  to  this  very  period  as  to  the  fabulous  homage  of  Saluzzo  to  the 
Dauphine  (Merkel,  Una  pretesa  dominazione  provetizale  nel  Fiemonte, 
Misc.  stor.  ital.,  Ser.  11.  T.  xi.)  and  the  two  documents  he  appears  to 
refer  to,  given  under  (2),  make  no  mention  of  the  Count  of  Savoy. 
(2)  Reg.  March.  Saluzzo,  B.S.S.S.  xvi.  No.  127,  is  the  treaty,  11  Nov. 
1200,  between  Manfred  II  and  Cuneo,  by  which  the  Marquess'  Cuneese 
vassals  from  Quaranta  and  Brusaporcello  are  to  perform  their  feudal 
obligations.  The  treaty  is  not  unfavourable  for  Cuneo,  considering 
that  she  had  no  assistance  from  Asti,  but  Savoy  does  not  appear  at  all. 
Reg.  March.  Saluzzo,  No.  131,  is  the  sale  by  Anselm  di  Brusaporcelli  of 
his  half  of  the  castle  there  to  Manfred  II ;  but  its  date  is  9  Dec.  1201, 
and  his  brothers  do  not  appear.  Thus  we  have  evidence  of  at  least  one 
lost  document  which  Della  Chiesa  had  of  these  transactions.  (3)  In 
Marquess  Boniface  of  Montferrat's  list  of  grievances  against  Asti  in 


380  The  Burgundian  phase 

1 1 99  (Sella,  Codex... de  Malabay la,  No.  996),  we  find  those  attributable 
to  the  foundation  of  Cuneo  in  1198  (Bertano,  p.  75);  they  include 
Caraglio,  Vignolo,  Bernezzo,  Brusaporcelli,  Boves  and  Quaranta.  Now 
his  only  interest  in  these  parts  was  as  suzerain  of  Manfred  II  and  the 
iatter's  son  Boniface  (of.  Bertano,  loc.  cit.).  Thus  his  claim  in  T199  is 
evidence  that  Bernezzo  and  Boves  were  then  Saluzzese  fiefs  or  demesnes. 

(4)  After  an  apparently  unlucky  war  in  1223  (Car.  Reg.  cdlxxiv.,  Reg. 
March.  Sal.,  B.S.S.S.  xvi.  p.  347)  Thomas  cedes  among  other  things 
to  Manfred  III  of  Saluzzo  the  homage  of  the  lords  of  Bernezzo,  which 
lies  much  to  the  south  of  the  furthest  old  Savoyard  fief  known.  Barge 
(see  above,  p.  286).  Now  we  do  not  find  the  homage  of  Bernezzo 
ceded  by  Saluzzo  to  Thomas  after  the  Iatter's  successes  in  12 13-15. 
The   inference   is   that    he  gained  it  in  some  lost  treaty  after   1198. 

(5)  In  Count  Thomas'  treaty  with  Asti  in  1224  (Car.  Sup.  lxix.  ;  Sella, 
Codex.. .de  Malabayla,  No.  656),  while  he  makes  many  cessions,  he 
reserves  his  rights  in  Boves,  and  Asti  does  the  same.  Since  the  draft- 
cession  of  Humbert  II  was  never  carried  out,  and  at  best  concerned 
much  else  beside  Boves,  it  would  seem  from  Car.  Sup.  lxix.  that 
Thomas  had  recently  acquired  some  special  claims  there,  for  which  for 
the  reasons  given  under  (4)  c.  1200  offers  the  only  known  opportunity. 

(6)  In  the  peace  between  Count  Thomas  and  the  Countess-regent  of 
Saluzzo  in  December  12 15  (Car.  Reg.  cdl.  ;  Reg.  March.  Saluzzo, 
p.  332)  there  is  the  following  clause :  "  Preterea  investivit  jamdictus 
comes  ipsum  Mainfredum  (III)  de  Saluciis  de  omni  alio  feudo  quod 
ipse  et  antecessores  sui  antiquitus  vel  noviter  tenebant  ab  eo,  nominatim 
de  Roncalia  et  de  FontaniHo....Pro  hac  autem  investitura  feudi... fecit 
fidelitatem  Mainfredus  dicto  comiti  except©  imperatore  et  marchione 
Montisferrati."  Here  I  think  the  word  antiquitus  is  little  more  than 
a  safeguarding  form.  Manfred  III  and  his  predecessors  have  held  the 
two  places  from  Thomas  only,  be  it  noted  (ab  eo),  not  from  Thomas' 
predecessors ;  and  the  homage  to  Montferrat  which  appears  to  date 
from  1 197  (see  above,  p.  368)  naturally  takes  precedence  of  a  homage 
dating  from  c.  1200. 

From  all  these  considerations  I  think  G.  della  Chiesa  really  had 
some  notice  (probably,  to  judge  from  his  vagueness  and  inaccuracy,  in 
a  brief  inventory  mentioning  a  lost  document)  of  a  treaty  of  cession 
between  Count  Thomas  and  Manfred  II  dated  in  1200.  It  explains 
the  origin  of  Thomas'  rights  over  Bernezzo,  Fontanile,  Roncaglia  and 
Boves,  and  gives  a  consistent  chronology  for  all  the  known  facts  about 
them.  It  further  accounts  for  the  easy  terms  that  Cuneo  got  from 
Manfred  II  in  1200.  It  fits  in  with  Thomas'  appearance  at  S.  Ambrogio 
in  that  year.  We  need  not  assume  with  G.  della  Chiesa  that  Thomas 
extorted  the  Cuneese  peace  of  1200  from  Manfred  II.     If  so  he  would 


Evidence  for  the  war  with  Zahringen  381 

surely  be  reserved  among  Cuneo's  allies  as  a  power  not  to  be  attacked 
by  them  in  the  Marquess'  cavalcatae.  But  a  successful  raid  by  Thomas 
and  the  concessions  necessitated  by  it  may  have  forced  Manfred  II  to 
be  moderate  in  his  demands  on  the  otherwise  isolated  Cuneo. 


APPENDIX   11. 

The  reconstruction  of  the  war  between  Count  Thomas  and  Berthold  V 
in  the  years  1 201-7  is  taken  from  M.  H.  Carrard,  Le  Combat  de  Chillon 
{M.D.R.  Ser.  11.  Vol.  i.),  from  whom  I  only  differ  in  one  material 
circumstance,  i.e.  in  making  the  castle  of  Blonay  captured  by  Berthold  V 
and  Bishop  Roger  of  Lausanne,  and  not  by  Thomas.  We  know  that 
there  were  lords  of  Blonay  on  both  sides  (see  above,  p.  376,  notes  2,  3), 
and  the  fact  that  the  Bishop  dates  a  letter  by  its  capture  (see  below) 
shows,  I  think,  that  it  must  have  been  captured  by  his  side.  The 
contemporary  evidence,  which  is  very  scanty,  is  as  follows,  (i)  Cartul. 
Lausan.,  M.D.R.  vi.  p.  459,  "  Quidam  miles  Theutonicus,  nomine  Tiez 
Blata,  mortuus  in  obsidione  de  Blonai,  dedit  B.  Marie  Lausannensi 
quoddam  lunagium  quod  jacet  in  episcopatu  Constantiensi  prope  Buxse 
quod  est  Templariorum  in  villa  que  dicitur  Wigersvile,  unde  heres 
Tietelmi,  cognomine  Plata,  debet  reddere  annuatim  ii  solidos  in  festo 
S.  Andree."  (2)  M.D.R.  xix.  p.  182  :  a  letter  of  Bishop  Roger  of 
Lausanne  dated  "apud  Viveis  [Vevey]...anno  incarnationis  dominice 
MCCiii,  tempore  illo  quo  castrum  de  Blonay  captum  fuit."  (3)  Cartul. 
Lausan.,  M.D.R.  vi.  p.  45  ;  Roger,  Bishop  of  Lausanne  (c.  11 74-1 2 11) : 
"  multas  substenavit  guerras  pro  libertate  ecclesie,  et  fecit  castrum  de 
Lucens  [north  of  Moudon]  quod  tamen  per  guerram  fuit  combustum, 
et  refecit  turrem  de  Ripa  quam  Thomas  comes  Sabaudie  diruerat." 
Id.  p.  502  :  Bishop  Roger  "  fecit  etiam  turrem  in  Ripa  sub  Lausannam 
[i.e.  Ouchy  or  close  by]  quam  dominus  Landricus  episcopus  decessor 
suus  fecerat  ante.  Set  Thomas  comes  Maurianensis  earn  diruit  per 
guerram."  (4)  Cartul.  Lausan.,  M.D.R.  vi.  p.  in:  '^  Nemus  quod 
dicitur  Troncus  (near  VVarens)  erat  desertus  et  pascebant  ibi  animalia 
per  guerram  ducis  Bertoldi  et  Thome  comitis  de  Sabaudia." 

From  these  notices  we  see  that  the  war  between  Berthold  and 
Thomas  which  ended  in  1211  lasted  long  enough  to  let  a  pasturage-wood 
be  overrun  by  wild  animals ;  that  the  Bishop  of  Lausanne  was  involved 
in  it  already  in  1203,  for  Vevey  was  in  Savoyard  land  and  Blonay 
a  Savoyard  fief  (see  above,  p.  92).  Now  King  Philip  would  never 
have  granted  Moudon,  Berthold  V's  own  foundation,  to  Thomas, 
especially  almost  in  Berthold's  presence,  without  the  latter's  tacit  consent. 
We  may  therefore  conclude  that  Berthold  had  had  much  the  worst  of 
the  war  by  1207.     On  the  other  hand,  it  is  likely  that  Thomas  obtained 


382  The   Burgundian  phase 

in  a  grant  so  humiliating  to  Berthold  less  than  he  had  formerly  conquered 
in  the  war. 

Now  M.  Carrard  points  out  that  in  the  Chroniques  of  Savoy  {M.H.P. 
Script.  II.  162  fif.  and  172  ff.)  and  other  late  sources,  which  yet  are  only 
partially  derived  from  them,  there  is  a  war  and  imperial  investiture 
attributed  to  Thomas'  son  Peter  II  (Count  1263-68),  which,  even 
allowing  for  tradition  and  its  rehandlings,  can  by  no  means  be  adapted 
to  the  events  of  Peter  II's  life.  These  late  sources^  (which  are  given 
mostly  in  Wurstemberger,  iv.  No.  173)  relate  that  the  Emperor 
(Frederick  II,  Philip,  Richard  of  Cornwall  or  Alfonso  IX),  being  wroth 
with  the  Count  of  Savoy,  sent  a  German  prince  (Duke  of  Chophinguen, 
Loffingen,  Cheplungreen,  Berthold  V  of  Zahringen),  who  also  ruled  in 
Vaud  (and  according  to  one  chronicler  had  claims  on  Savoy),  to  attack 
Chablais.  The  Duke,  in  company  with  several  Counts  and  many 
Vaudois  nobles,  laid  siege  to  Chillon;  but  Peter  II  made  a  victorious 
night-sortie  in  which  he  captured  the  Duke  and  his  nobles.  Then  he 
proceeded  to  the  conquest  of  Vaud,  capturing  Moudon,  Rue  and 
Yverdun.  The  Duke  was  set  free  on  condition  of  ceding  his  rights 
over  Vaud  to  the  victor.  Later  {M.H.P.  Script.  11.  172)  occurred  the 
dramatic   scene  of   the  imperial  investiture  (see  above,  p.  373,  n.  2). 

While  an  attempt,  as  M.  Carrard  shows,  to  trace  an  origin  for  this 
legend  in  Peter  II's  life  brings  us  at  once  to  irreconcilable  contradictions, 
it  is  easy  to  see  in  it  an  exaggeration  of  Thomas'  successes  in  1 201-7. 
Thomas  was  the  young  and  fiery  warrior  required  by  the  story ;  of  him 
the  first  documentary  investiture  is  recorded  in  1207  ;  he  evidently 
stood  aloof  from  the  Hohenstaufen  during  1198-1206  ;  he  was  the  first 
Savoyard  to  make  conquests  in  Vaud,  including  Moudon  itself;  he  was 
victor  over  Berthold  V  of  Zahringen,  the  last  of  his  House,  dying  in  12 18 
when  Peter  was  only  a  boy,  and  the  only  person  who  held  the  position 
of  the  legendary  Duke ;  he,  too,  was  a  contemporary  of  King  Philip, 
whom  one  account  represents  as  his  enemy. 

In  consideration  of  these  points,  I  think  we  may  accept  M.  Carrard's 
thesis  of  the  transference  of  a  legend  of  Thomas  to  Peter  II.  It  was 
already  adumbrated,  although  not  in  sodecisive  a  form,  by  Wurstemberger, 
I.  77-9.  As  to  how  far  we  may  trust  the  account  in  details,  it  is  hard 
to  say,  but  Rue  at  any  rate  is  on  the  road  to  Moudon,  and  there  is  no 
impossibility  in  the  capture  of  Berthold  V  at  Chillon. 

1  It  seems  unnecessary  to  quote  them  since  they  all  differ,  are  all  late,  all 
anachronous  and  ill-formed,  and  all  sophisticated  legends. 


Otto   IV  in   Italy  383 


Section  II.    Count  Thomas'  Italian  conquests. 

We  now  reach  the  heyday  of  Count  Thomas'  power.  In  these 
years  (12 12-19)  he  tends  to  neglect  and  withdraw  from  northern 
affairs ;  he  allies  himself  with  the  Counts  of  Kyburg,  heirs  of  his  old 
enemies  of  Zahringen ;  he  maintains  a  peaceful  policy  towards  the 
Bishop  of  Lausanne  and  the  Sire  de  la  Tour-du-Pin  ;  his  only  war  in 
this  direction,  if  one  occurred,  seems  due  to  his  kinship  with  the  Count 
of  the  Genevois.  But  in  Italy  it  is  a  time  of  active  aggression ;  he  is 
endeavouring  to  conquer  the  original  Piedmont  round  Pinerolo ;  he 
undertakes  wars  against  Turin  and  the  marquessate  of  Saluzzo.  In 
view  of  his  later  history  and  the  devouring  ambition  which  possessed 
him  throughout  his  life,  I  think  we  may  assume  that  far  wider  schemes 
than  the  acquisition  of  a  township  here  and  there  now  swam  across  his 
imagination.  He  must  have  already  aimed  at  reaching  the  Ligurian 
coast  and  reconstituting  the  mark  of  Turin  in  its  fullest  extent.  The 
small  success,  that  he  really  attained  even  in  his  best  days,  in  these 
grandiose  schemes  was  not  at  all  out  of  keeping  with  the  age.  His 
wide  lands  and  turbulent  politics  of  his  neighbours  gave  him  continual 
temptations  for  aggression,  and  it  was  easy  for  him  to  leave  out  of 
account  the  scantiness  of  his  resources. 

While  Thomas  had  never  lost  sight  of  Italian  affairs ^  his  resumption 
of  an  active  policy  in  Piedmont  appears  to  have  been  due  to  Otto  IV's 
Italian  expedition.  In  1209  the  King  of  the  Romans,  left  by  Philip  of 
Hohenstaufen's  death  without  a  rival,  started  south  for  his  imperial 
coronation.  After  that  event  the  new  Emperor  (in  the  first  half 
of  1 2 10)  proceeded  to  establish  his  authority  in  North  Italy.  In 
the  course  of  his  progress  he  reached  Vercelli  in  June,  and  passed 
on  to  Turin,  Alba  and  Tortona  in  the  same  month'^.  All  the  local 
powers  vied  in  doing  him  homage,  and  the  greater  magnates,  lay  and 

1  Thus  in  February  1209  Thomas  confirmed,  or  rather  renewed  his  ancestor, 
Humbert  II's  grant  of  Giaveno  to  the  Abbey  of  Chiusa,  Car.  Reg.  CDXXXi.,  Claretta, 
Storia...di  S.  Michele  delta  Chiusa,  p.  229).     Cf.  above,  p.  276. 

"^  Bohmer-Ficker,  Regesta  Imperii,  Nos.  409-419.  With  regard  to  Reg.  March. 
Saluzzo  (B.S.S.S.  xvi.),  No.  161  [  =  B.-F.,  No.  364  (G.  del  Carretto,  Cron.  di 
Afon/errato,  M.H.P.  Script.  III.  1149)],  dated  25  March  1210  at  Ferrara,  I  subscribe 
to  B.-F.  who  hold  that  the  list  of  witnesses  which  includes  Count  Thomas,  to  this 
Imperial  diploma  given  by  del  Carretto,  refers  really  to  another  lost  diploma  issued 
at  Turin  (B.-F.  414).  In  fact  the  whole  group  of  Piedmontese  nobles  in  del  Car- 
retto's  passage  reappears  in  the  Turinese  diploma  to  Casanova  (B.-F.  413)1  and  it  is 
incredible  that  they,  some  of  them  quite  local  men,  should  all  make  a  mysterious  flying 
visit  to  Ferrara  in  April,  subscribe  (B.-F.  364),  and  di  again. 


384  Count  Thomas'   Italian  conquests 

ecclesiastical,  especially  danced  attendance  at  his  court.  Among  the 
latter  and  not,  as  it  turned  out,  the  least  sincere  of  them,  came  Thomas 
of  Savoy.  It  was  at  Turin  that  he  joined  the  imperial  cortege  and  he 
seems  to  have  left  it  at  Alba  or  Asti^  There  was  no  tangible  result, 
but  it  would  be  an  admirable  opportunity  for  taking  diplomatic  sound- 
ings. Soon  the  Emperor  had  journeyed  away  southwards  to  quarrel 
with  Pope  Innocent  III  and  begin  a  new  series  of  events  in  European 
history. 

In  the  meantime  Count  Thomas  was  occupied  in  Piedmont.  There 
had  been  considerable  changes  in  the  political  complexion  of  the 
country  since  the  peace  of  1206,  but  only  two  nearly  concern  our 
subject.  First,  in  1204  Turin,  Chieri  and  Testona  had  carried  through 
a  treaty  of  union,  Testona  castle  being  destroyed  for  the  latter  city's 
benefit^.  But  the  arrangement  did  not  work.  The  two  minor  towns 
soon  broke  loose,  and  Turin,  under  her  new,  capable  Bishop,  Giacomo 
di  Carisio,  seems  to  have  conducted  a  successful  campaign  against  her 
quondam  allies.  Early  in  12 10  they  came  to  terms,  principally  to  the 
Bishop's  advantage,  for  he  recovered  a  very  genuine  feudal  suzerainty 
both  in  Chieri  and  Testona^.  Otto  IV  appears  to  have  had  some 
sneaking  objection  to  the  arrangement,  for  during  his  stay  in  the 
country  an  alliance  was  brought  about  under  his  auspices  between 
Chieri  and  her  other  suzerains,  the  Counts  of  Biandrate,  which  could 
only  act  as  a  check  on  the  Bishop's  proceedings^  The  claims  of  the 
Count  of  Savoy  were  forgotten  by  him  and  everyone. 

Meanwhile  the  other  small  Communes  in  the  south-west  were 
faring  still  worse.  Asti  had  not  found  them  sufficiently  subservient  to 
her  will,  and,  although  so  weak  and  young  in  their  communeship,  they 
already  felt  the  ineradicable  communal  jealousy  of  a  predominant 
neighbour.  There  are  signs  of  the  coming  breach  in  the  treaty  of 
peace  between  Asti  and  Manfred  II  of  Saluzzo  in  1206 ;  and  soon  the 
suzerain-city  had  abandoned  her  dependents  to  the  mercy  of  the  great 

^  Thomas  subscribes  at  Turin  in  June  (B.-F.,  No.  412,  Carlari  Minori,  B.S.S.S. 
XLii.  p.  29;  B.-F.  413  [Car.  Reg.  CDXXVII.],  Cartario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  Ii.  93; 
and  B.-F.  414  [see  above,  p.  383,  n.  2]),  and  at  Alba  (B.-F.  418  \Q2.x.Reg.  CDXXVI.], 
Sella,  Codex... de  Malabayla,  No.  7).  B.-F.  418,  known  only  by  a  late  copy,  has  the 
erroneous  reading  "Tomax  dux  Sabaudie."  The  dating  of  B.-F.  412,  413  (the  latter 
being  an  original)  offers  a  difficulty  "  vi  Non.  Junii."  The  month  is  guaranteed  by  the 
general  course  of  the  itinerary,  Otto  IV  being  at  Alba  on  his  progress  south  already 
on  the  13  June.  But  vi  Non.  Junii  does  not  exist  as  a  date,  and  on  the  easy  cor- 
rections iv  and  Hi  Non.  Otto  was  still  at  Vercelli.  Hence  B.-F.  is  to  be  followed  in 
amending  vi  Id.  Junii,  i.e.  8  June. 

-  See  Cibrario,  Delle  storie  di  Chieri,  I.  pp.  90  ff. 

^  Cibrario,  loc.  cit..  Doc.  in  id.  Vol.  11.  p.  64.     Cf.  Hellmann,  p.  86. 

*  Cibrario,  loc.  cit..  Doc.  in  id.  Vol.  11.  p.  82. 


Acquisition  of  Vigone  385 

feudatories \  Mondovi  was  compelled  to  submit  to  her  lord,  the 
Bishop  of  Asti".  Savigliano  found  safety  in  a  treaty  of  concitizenship 
with  Alba^  Cuneo  suffered  temporary  extinction.  Early  in  12 10  the 
Aleramid  Marquesses  unhindered  gathered  round  their  prey;  the 
details  and  length  of  the  siege  are  not  known,  but  for  twenty  years 
Cuneo  vanishes  from  history  ^ 

Such  were  the  internal  circumstances  of  Piedmont  when  Otto  IV's 
authority  began  to  break  up  under  the  stress  of  his  enmity  with  the 
Pope.  On  the  news  of  the  election  of  the  new  papalist  anti-King, 
Frederick  II  of  Hohenstaufen,  it  is  true  that  both  Thomas  of  Savoy 
and  Manfred  II  of  Saluzzo  remained  on  the  side  of  the  Emperor  to 
whom  they  had  sworn  fealty^,  but  Asti  and  the  Marquess  William  of 
Montferrat  soon  changed  their  allegiance,  and  the  two  loyalist  nobles 
were  shortly  at  odds.  The  course  of  events,  as  usual,  is  obscure ;  but 
so  far  as  we  know  the  first  thing  that  happened  was  a  forward  move- 
ment by  Count  Thomas.  An  opportunity  was  furnished  by  the 
condition  of  the  Abbey  of  S.  Giusto  of  Susa.  By  bad  luck  or  bad 
management  the  monastery  was  deep  in  debt,  and  Count  Thomas 
came  to  its  relief  by  the  purchase  of  its  township  of  Vigone  in  March 
1212^  A  Savoyard  Castellan  was  at  once  placed  over  that  convenient 
half-way  house  towards  the  Po'';  and  Thomas  at  once  proceeded  to 
acquire,  or  perhaps  only  to  enforce,  the  homage  of  the  lesser  nobles 
near.  The  Marquesses  of  Romagnano  and  the  Piossasco  now  follow 
in  his  train,  probably  for  most  of  their  possessions  north  of  the  Po**. 

^  In  the  1206  treaty  Asti  agrees  to  abandon  the  side  she  considers  in  the  wrong  in 
the  disputes  between  Manfred  II  and  Cuneo.  Further  in  Sella,  Codex... de  Malabayla, 
No.  250,  she  expressly  allows  her  new  ally,  Marquess  Otto  del  Carretto,  to  attack 
Cuneo. 

^  See  Bertano,  I.  p.  loo,  and  ii.  pp.  261-3.         ^  /iig....A/de,  B.S.S.S.  xx.p.  2g-,. 

*  See  Bertano,  op.  cit.  pp.  98-102  and  138  ff.  The  only  contemporary  evidence 
of  the  capture  of  Cuneo  is  B.-W.  Keg.  Imp.  No.  12368,  dated  i  May  1210,  "apud 
Cunium  ubi  exercitus  marchionum  fuerat  congregatus."  William  of  Montferrat  was 
among  the  Marquesses.  In  1230,  as  will  be  seen  later,  Codagnelli  speaks  of  the 
rebuilding  of  Cuneo. 

^  Count  Thomas  was  with  the  Emperor  at  the  conference  of  Lodi,  24  Jan.  1212 
(B.-F.  Keg.  Imp.  Nos.  460,  461).  [Cf.  Codagnelli,  Ann.  Plac.  Guelf.  (Script.  Rer. 
Germ.),  p.  39:  "(Otto  IV)  Laude... colloquium  fere  omnium  rectorum  civitatum 
Lonbardie,  comitum  et  marchionum  et  aliorum  celebravit."]  Manfred  II  in  Feb.  121 2 
was  at  Milan  {id.  465,  466).  That  Manfred  II  remained  for  some  time  on  Otto  IV's 
side  is  I  think  shown  by  his  absence  from  Frederick  Il's  court  at  Genoa  and  Asti 
in  1212,  and  by  the  clause  in  his  alliance  with  Count  Thomas  in  1213  (see  below) : 
"  salva  persona  imperatoris."  Frederick  II  was  then  "  rex  Romanorum."  Ilellniann, 
p.  89,  takes  the  opposite  view. 

*  Car.  Reg.  CDXXXV.  (M.H.P.  Chart,  i.  1193). 

^  He  appears  in  the  marriage-treaty  with  Saluzzo  ;  see  below. 

®  They  appear  as  guarantors  of  the  Couhl  in  the  marriage-treaty  with  Saluzzo 

P.  o.  25 


386  Count  Thomas'   Italian  conquests 

A  collision  with  Saluzzo  followed,  and  it  would  seem  that  an  early 
spring  campaign  in  12 13'  secured  Count  Thomas'  victory  over  his 
rival.  It  was  complete  enough,  and  probably  the  discontent  of  the 
ex-Cuneese  citizens  and  their  like  paralysed  the  Aleramid's  efforts.  On 
the  29th  of  April  at  Saluzzo  the  two  combatants  made  a  strict  mutual 
alliance- ;  on  the  day  before  they  had  made  a  succession-treaty. 
Manfred  II's  heir  Boniface  had  died  in  the  preceding  year^  leaving  a 
son  Manfred  and  a  daughter  Agnes.  The  former  was  now  to  be 
deprived  of  half  of  his  inheritance,  all  the  Saluzzese  lands  to  the  north 
of  the  Stura  di  Demonte,  which  were  to  fall  to  his  sister.  The  girl 
was  to  marry  Thomas'  own  eldest  son  Amadeus,  or,  in  case  of  his 
death  before  their  betrothal,  his  eldest  surviving  brother.  The  Count 
of  Savoy  was  to  be  regent  for  both  brother  and  sister  in  the  eventuality 
that  their  grandfather  died  before  their  majority  or  that  of  Agnes' 
husband^ 

(see  below),  together  with  a  Rivalta  and  the  Viscount  Henry  of  Baratonia,  the  latter 
no  doubt  as  a  landholder  in  the  Val  di  Susa.  In  1243  one  section  of  the  Romagnano 
held  half  Virle  etc.  from  Savoy  [Carte  del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  in.  2,  p.  311). 

^  For  Thomas  was  in  Aosta  27  June  12 12  (Car.  Reg.  CDXXXVI. ;  M.H.P.  Chart,  i. 
1 191),  and  the  treaties  with  Saluzzo  are  dated  28—29  April  1213.  Prof.  Gabotto, 
V Abazia...di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  I.  137-8,  considers  the  concessions  of  Manfred  II 
were  due  not  to  defeat  in  war  by  Thomas,  but  to  his  fear  of  Asti.  But  there  is  no 
trace  in  the  Meg.  March.  Saluzzo  of  any  conflict  between  him  and  Asti  in  these  years. 
On  the  contrary,  he  can  destroy  Cuneo  in  12 10  and  is  on  Asti's  side  in  12 15  (see 
below).  And  to  leave  his  heir  only  that  half  of  his  lands  which  was  most  exposed  to 
Asti's  ambition  would  be  a  wild  kind  of  precaution. 

2  Car.  Reg.  CDXXXVII.  {Reg.  March.  Saluzzo,  B.S.S.S.  XVI.  p.  329):  "quod 
debent  se  juvare,  salvare,  defendere  personas,  res,  terras,  et  opida,  villas  at  pos- 
sessiones  omnes  ;  ita  quod  uterque  illorum  de  terra  alterius  possit  guerram  facere 
cuicumque  voluerit,  salva  persona  imperatoris  et  proprio  facto  imperii." 

2  The  date  is  only  approximate. 

*  Car.  Reg.  CDXXXViii.  (M.H.P.  Chart,  il.  1277):  "  Marchio  de  Saluciis  dedit 
Agnetam  filiam  q.  filii  sui  Bonefacii  Amedeo  filio...(Thomae)  comitis  in  uxorem  : 
et  si...Amedeus  decederet  antequam  matrimonium...consumaretur... semper  ille  filius 
qui  comes  post  istum  esse  deberet  earn  accipiat  in  uxorem.  Et  dedit... marchio  prefate 
Agneti  in  dotem  post  mortem  suam  medietatem  rerum  suarum.  (List  follows.) 
Ceteras  vero  res,  viz.  opida  et  villas  quas  habet  citra  Tanagrum  et  ultra,  et  citra 

Sturiam  et  ultra  Mainfredus  nepos  ejus  habeat Preterea  si  dictus  marchio  Main- 

fredus  antequam  nepos  ejus  Mainfredus  ad  etatem  viginti  annorum  perveniret  dece- 
deret...Thomas  comes  tutelam...Mainfredi  nepotis  sui  et  rerum  suarum  habeat  donee 
ipse  Mainfredus  ad  etatem  viginti  annorum  perveniat.  Preterea  opidani  qui  custodiam 
opidorum  et  locorum  qui  in  parte  assignata.... Agneti  continentur,  habent...jurare 
debent  fidelitatem  talem  ipsi  puelle  et  marito  vel  comiti  per  eam...et  post  mortem 
marchionis  opida  etc.  ipsi  puelle  et  marito  suo  et  comiti  nomine  ipsius  incontinent! 
reddere  tenentur."  The  list  of  places  assigned  to  Agnes  includes  Fontanile,  Roncaglia, 
half  Barge,  Revello,  the  Valle  del  Po,  Saluzzo,  Brondello,  Verzuolo,  Felicetto,  one- 
quarter  Val  di  Varaita,  Ponte,  Costigliole,  Villa,  Centallo,  Romanisio  and  the  fief  of 
Rufifino  di  Salmour. 


Wars  with  Saluzzo  387 

The  results  of  these  treaties,  had  they  really  come  into  effect,  would 
have  been  to  antedate  the  progress  of  Savoy  southwards  by  over  a 
century,  and  perhaps  merely  have  led  to  a  collapse  like  that  of  1187. 
But  they  never  came  into  being,  and  it  is  not  probable  that  Manfred  II 
ever  intended  more  than  to  buy  off  for  the  moment  the  enemy  at  his 
gates. 

For  the  next  two  years  Thomas  seems  to  have  been  immersed  in 
the  internal  affairs  of  his  lands,  but  the  growth  of  the  townsfolk  in 
power  and  privilege  which  was  the  leading  fact  of  the  time,  is  best 
treated  of  in  the  chapter  on  Savoyard  government.  The  Count  kept 
aloof  from  the  Lombard  War,  which  was  conducted  with  great  spirit 
between  the  Ottonian  communes,  headed  by  Milan  and  Piacenza,  and 
their  Frederician  rivals,  such  as  Pavia  and  Asti.  It  was  only  the  death 
at  the  close  of  April  12 15  of  his  one-time  foe  Manfred  II  of  Saluzzo^ 
which  made  him  take  an  active  interest  in  Piedmontese  politics.  Up 
to  the  last  the  old  Marquess  had  solemnly  reserved  the  Count's  treaty- 
rights  in  his  dealings'-,  but  now  the  mask  was  at  once  thrown  off  and 
the  child  Manfred  III  succeeded  to  his  whole  inheritance  under  the 
guardianship  of  his  grandmother.  Countess  Alice.  Saluzzo,  of  course, 
took  a  place  among  the  Frederician  states  ;  and  Thomas  as  naturally 
turned  to  his  party  friends  among  the  Ottonians,  who  were  glad  enough 
to  have  their  arm  lengthened  by  his  alliance.  On  the  20th  June  the 
Count  had  struck  a  bargain  with  the  most  easterly  of  the  active  com- 
munes, Vercelli,  in  terms  which  imply  a  similar  if  less  formal  bond 
with  Milan",  and  the  new  league  at  once  set  to  work  and  soon  knight 
and  sergeant  were  riding  down  the  Alpine  passes  for  the  war.  The 
Marquess  of  Montferrat  was  their  first  objective.  On  the  17th  of  July, 
a  large  Milanese  force  furnished  with  mangonels,  wooden  towers  and  all 
manner  of  siege-engines  arrived  at  Vercelli,  and  marched  in  company 
with  the  Vercellese  to  beleaguer  Casale  on  the  Po,  the  easternmost  town 
of  Montferrat.  Already  at  Vercelli  they  had  been  joined  by  their  Bur- 
gundian  ally  with  a  thousand  knights  following  his  banner  in  glittering 


'  His  last  document  is  dated  22  April  12 15  {Reg.  March.  Saluzzo,  B.S.S.S.  XVI. 
No.  192). 

^  "  Salvis  pactis  comitis  Mauriane  "  (loc.  cit.). 

*  Codagnelli,  Ann.  Plac.  Guelf.  (Script.  Rer.  Germ.),  p.  49:  "  Eodem  mense 
(Junii)  comes  Thomasius  de  Sabogia  concordiam  et  societatem  fecit  cum  Medio- 
lanensibus  et  Vercellensibus."  The  treaty  with  Vercelli  and  the  guarantee  of 
Milan  (Car.  Reg.  CDXLV.),  although  excerpted  in  Documenti  di  Vercelli,  B.S.S.S. 
VIII.  p.  loi,  and  elsewhere  (cf.  B.-W.  Reg.  Imp.  Nos.  12476,  12477),  has  not, 
I  believe,  been  published.  Thomas'  son  Amadeus  is  a  party.  There  is  an  un- 
certainty in  the  date,  Saturday  and  21  June  12 15,  since  Saturday  was  20  June  in 
that  year. 

25 — 2 


388  Count  Thomas'   Italian  conquests 

array  ^  No  wonder  that  the  suzerain  of  such  a  force  had  carried  all 
before  him  in  his  wars ;  yet  they  cannot  have  represented  more  than 
two-thirds  of  his  vassals,  for  Savoy  had  to  be  left  in  a  state  of  defence. 
Meanwhile  the  Alessandrians  had  united  their  levies  to  the  besieging 
army,  mangonel  and  ram  had  battered  at  the  defences,  till  by  the 
5th  of  August  300  yards  of  the  walls  were  in  ruins,  and  the  final  assault 
could  be  made.  The  besiegers  were  drawn  up  in  four  divisions,  each 
ally  attacking  separately  :  and  all  was  ready.  But  when  the  defenders 
of  the  town  saw  their  foes  streaming  towards  the  breach,  flashing  and 
clanking  in  their  armour  and  dragging  with  them  an  endless  series  of 
ladders,  bridges,  belfries  and  all  their  mechanical  artillery,  their  hearts 
failed  them.  They  knew  that  a  general  massacre  was  the  accepted 
right  of  the  stormers  of  a  town.  So  before  the  fight  began,  the  gates 
were  flung  open  and  the  town  surrendered,  to  be  afterwards  razed  to 
the  ground  by  the  exultant  victors. 

So  far  Count  Thomas  had  done  his  allies'  work,  for  his  quarrel 
with  Montferrat  was  at  best  an  indirect  one^.  Now  it  was  their  turn 
to  serve  him.  On  the  9th  of  August  five  hundred  Milanese  knights 
marched  under  his  command  towards  Saluzzo.  No  ally  could  help  the 
Countess-regent,  for  Asti  and  Montferrat  were  hard  beset.  Nor  could 
any  effectual  resistance  be  made.  Castle  after  castle,  and  township 
after  township  in  the  land  north  of  the  Stura,  was  captured  and  burnt 
by  the  Count  and  his  allies^.     Yet  the  disaffection,  which  Thomas  had 

^  Codagnelli,  Ann.  Plac.  Guelf.  p.  49  ff.  "  (Mediolanenses  Vercellas)  cum  comite 
de  Sabogia,  qui  in  eorum  auxilio  cum  M.  militibus  egregie  bellicis  paratis  armis 
magnifice  et  decenter  venerat,  et  Vercellenses  cum  omni  gente  eorum  circa  (Casale) 

obsidendum...vi.  Kal.  Aug.  sua  fixere  tentoria Die  autem  Mercurii  v.  mensis  Aug. 

comes  de  Sabogia  et  Mediolanenses  et  Alexandrini...in  strictissimis  actiis,  scilicet 
Mediolanenses  ex  una  parte,  et  Vercellenses  ex  altera,  et  comes  et  Alexandrini  ex 
aliis  partibus  ad... locum  expugnandum...se  preparaverunt.  Videntes  vero  intrinseci 
inimicos...armati  et  aschlerati  versus  locum  pergentes  cum  manganis  etc.  circa  illud 

locum  se   construxere.      Timentes   itaquc.potestati    Mediolani...se    reddiderunt 

Quem  locum  Mediolanenses  et  Vercellenses  diruerunt  et  destruxerunt." 

^  It  could  only  arise  from  the  suzerainty  of  Montferrat  over  the  Val  di  Stura  di 
Demonte  and  other  parts  of  Saluzzo. 

.  ^  Codagnelli,  Ann.  Plac.  Guelf.  p.  52  :  "Nono  ejusdem  mensis  Augusti  quinginti 
milites  Mediolani  bellicis  armis  egregie  preparati  in  auxilio  et  servitio  comitis  de 
Saboguia  iverunt  in  terram  scilicet  marchionis  Punasii ;  castra  quoque  plurima  et 
villas  innumerabiles  cepit  et  destruxit  et  habuit,  pro  quibus  litem  habebat  cum 
marchione  de  Monteferato.  Videns  dictus  marchio  se  ipsi  comiti  et  Mediolanensibus 
non  posse  resistere  pactum  et  concordiam  cum  eis  fecit  ad  melius  quod  potuit."  No 
doubt  this  account  is  exaggerated,  but  unless  the  inhabitants  declared  for  him 
Thomas  would  have  few  means  of  holding  his  conquests  for  more  than  a  few  days  : 
after  the  short  feudal  service  of  40  days  was  over.  "  Punasius  "  is  the  surname  of 
Manfred  II  of  Saluzzo  which  Codagnelli  uses  erroneously  for  Manfred  III.  The 
Marquess  of  Montferrat  was,  as  we  have  seen,  suzerain  of  parts  of  the  Saluzzan  lands 


Peace  with  Saluzzo  389 

perhaps  counted  on,  did  not  show  itself.  The  Saluzzese  stood  staunch 
to  the  unlucky  boy  who  ruled  them ;  rapine  could  only  breed  hatred, 
and  the  year  wore  on.  The  Milanese  must  soon  have  retired,  the 
feudal  service  of  his  vassals  soon  have  ended,  and  the  statesman,  who 
in  Thomas  always  lay  in  wait  to  replace  the  fatigued  fury  of  the  warrior, 
came  again  to  the  fore.  He  put  aside  the  extortionate  treaty  of  12 13 
and  a  scheme  of  ambition  then,  at  least,  hopeless,  and  consented  to 
indulgent  terms.  On  the  30th  of  December^  1215  Thomas,  young 
Manfred  and  the  Countess  Alice  met  by  the  banks  of  the  Po  near 
Carignano,  and  the  treaty  was  signed.  The  Count's  gains  might  almost 
be  called  trifling  :  Manfred  III  accepted  his  own  share  of  Barge  as  a 
fief  from  Savoy  in  addition  to  those  places,  already  so  held  by  the 
treaty  of  1200^;  and  the  Count  could  use  it  as  his  own  territory  in 
time  of  war.  But  only  the  Marquess's  personal  service  was  due  to 
Thomas,  and  even  that  obligation  ranked  after  those  due  to  the 
Emperor  and  the  Marquess  of  Montferratl  The  marriage-scheme  was 
let  drop,  and  it  cannot  have  been  long  before  the  youthful  Amadeus 
married  a  daughter  of  the  Dauphin.  In  fact  the  treaty  was  little  more 
than  a  salve  to  the  victor's  pride;  it  was  not  a  concession  to  his 
interests. 

Although  the  Saluzzese  treaty  could  hardly  be  called  a  great  success 
for  Count  Thomas  we  may  perhaps  see  a  corollary  of  his  campaign  in 
an  acquisition  he  made  more  than  a  year  afterwards.  The  younger 
line  of  Saluzzo,  the  Marquesses  of  Busca,  had  long  been  in  difficulties. 

(see  above,  App.  i  to  Sect.  l).  Hellmann,  p.  92,  has  thoroughly  misunderstood  the 
passage,  partly  through  an  erroneous  date  for  the  treaty  of  30  Dec.  12 15  (see  next 
note).  Prof.  Gabotto,  L''Abazia...di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  I.  p.  139,  does  not  bring  out 
what  poor  results  the  campaign  really  had. 

1  The  document  is  dated  "Anno  a  nativitate  Christi  Mccxvi.,  Ind.  nil.,  iii.  Kal. 
Januarii,"  i.e.  30  Dec.  1215.  Until  Bertano,  the  date  was  misinterpreted  30  Dec. 
1 2 16,  a  year  too  late.     Codagnelli's  account  puts  the  final  touch  on  the  proof. 

2  See  above,  p.  370. 

3  Car.  Keg.  CDi..  {Reg.  March.  Sahtzzo,  B.S.S.S.  xvi.  p.  332):  "  Donacionem... 
fecit  domina  Alasia  comitissa  de  Saluciis  pro  se  et  nepote  suo  Mainfredo  et  ipse 
Mainfredus  per  se  ipsum  domino  Thome  comiti  Sabaudie  de  omni  eo  toto  quod  habet 
dicta  comitissa  vel  Mainfredus  in  Bargiis,  de  duabus  partibus  medietatis  de  Bargiis... 

tali  modo  ut.. .comes  habeat...pro  alodio Preterea... Thomas  comes  Sabaudie  in- 

vestivit...Mainfredum  de  toto  supradicto  de  Bargiis  per  rectum  et  gentile  feudum... 
ita  ut... Mainfredus  non  teneatur  servire  comiti  nisi  de   servicio  sue  persone.     Eo 

excepto  quod...liceat  comiti  facere  guerram  de  feudo  quod  Mainfredus  ab  eo  tenet 

Preterea  investivit... comes  ipsum  Mainfredum  de  Saluciis  de  omni  alio  feudo  quod 
ipse  et  antecessores  sui  antiquitus  vel  noviter  tenebant  ab  eo,  nominatim  de  Roncalia 

et  de  Fontanilio Pro  hac  autem  investitura... fecit  fidelitatem  Mainfredus... comiti 

excepto  imperatore  et  marchione  Montisferrati."  Since  Manfred  II  had  possessed 
half  Barge  (Car.  Keg.  CDXXxviii.  ;  M.H.P.  Chart.  Ii.  1277),  it  seems  that  Agnes' 
share  must  have  been  one-third  of  the  inheritance,  in  this  place  at  least. 


390  Count  Thomas'   Italian  conquests 

One  branch  of  them,  the  Marquesses  Lancia,  was  entirely  ruined 
through  over-indulgence  in  tournaments,  feasts,  the  gai  science  and  other 
feudal  luxuries.  And  the  main  line  was  constantly  selling  lands  and 
rights  to  their  cousins  of  Saluzzo.  Now  in  1217  they  lost  their  inde- 
pendent status.  Probably  they  were  hard-pressed  by  their  neighbours, 
and  found  it  best  to  distribute  their  allegiance  as  much  as  possible.  So 
just  before  they  became  vassals  of  Asti  for  their  share  of  Saluzzo^,  the 
Marquess  William  of  Busca,  head  of  the  family,  acknowledged  his 
townships  of  Busca  and  Scarnafigi  to  be  fiefs  of  Savoy"^.  Thus  Thomas 
obtained  a  footing,  though  an  indirect  one,  in  the  land  round  Saluzzo, 
and  must  have  yet  once  more  roused  the  suspicions  of  his  southern 
neighbours. 

Yet  while  he  was  evidently  only  waiting  his  chance  for  a  second 
plunge  into  Lombard  politics,  some  grandiose  scheme  was  clearly 
engaging  his  attention  in  Burgundy.  What  was  it?  we  wonder.  At 
this  very  time  King  Frederick  II,  soon  to  be  freed  in  May  12 18  by 
death  from  his  powerless  imperial  rival.  Otto  IV,  was  attempting  to 
revive  the  authority  of  the  Empire  in  Burgundy,  a  sub-King  of  Aries 
being  one  expedient''.  On  the  other  side  the  Albigensian  Wars  were 
still  in  progress  and  were  more  and  more  taking  the  form  of  a  racial 
struggle  between  Languedoc  and  Languedoil  in  lieu  of  that  of  a 
religious  contest.  It  would  almost  seem  as  if  Thomas,  who  would  not 
recognize  the  Hohenstaufen  King  even  after  Otto  IV's  death,  had  some 
scheme,  dream  would  be  the  better  word,  of  a  league  of  the  great 
vassals  of  Burgundy  to  keep  out  the  stranger.  He  naturally  intended 
to  be  chief  and  president  of  his  league,  if  we  may  accept  the  reality  of 
the  plan ;  and  it  is  to  that  ambition,  perhaps,  that  we  should  attribute 
the  war  in  which  he  seems  to  have  engaged  in  these  years  on  his  north- 
western frontier. 

Either  in  1216  or  1217a  new  Bishop  Aymon  de  Grandson  sat  on 
the  episcopal  throne  of  Geneva.  This  nobleman — he  came  of  an 
illustrious  house — was  not  a  man  whose  character  inspired  respect,  and 
he  was  soon  embroiled  with  the  chief  vassals  of  his  see.  The  Count  of 
the  Genevois,  at  this  time  apparently  Humbert,  Count  Thomas'  brother- 
in-law,  the  Sire  de  Faucigny,  and  seemingly  Thomas  of  Savoy  himself, 
all  refused  their  homage,  and  the  Count  of  the  Genevois  usurped,  or 
continued  to  usurp,  the  Bishop's  jurisdiction  in  Geneva  itself  contrary 
to  the  Treaty  of  SeysseP.     Thomas,  the  most  powerful  of  the  three, 

^  Sella,  Codex... de  Malabayla,  Nos.  694,  695,  June  1217. 

-  Car.  Reg.  cdli.  (Manuel,  I  Marchesi  di  Vasto,  p.  344),  dated  15  March  1217. 

^  Fournier,  op.  cit.  pp.  100  ff.  William  de  Baux  was  to  be  King  of  Aries,  as 
Burgundy,  outside  the  ancient  rectorate,  began  to  be  called.  He  never  exercised 
authority,  however ;  nor  did  the  next  sub-King,  William  of  Montferrat. 

*  See  above,  p.  284. 


New  Burgundian  schemes  391 

aimed  at  acquiring  the  right  of  investing  the  Bishop  with  his  regalia,  a 
right  which  would  carry  with  it  the  previous  homage  of  the  prelate.  It 
seems  Ukely  that  the  lords  of  La  Tour-du  Pin  and  of  Thoire  and  Villars 
joined  the  Bishop^,  but  of  the  events  of  the  war  we  have  no  information. 
We  may  guess  by  the  results,  however,  that  no  very  decisive  success 
was  gained  by  either  side.  In  January  12 18  Thomas  bought  off  the 
Sire  de  la  Tour-du-Pin  by  an  engagement  not  to  make  further  claims 
of  homage  from  him  for  more  than  his  then  fiefs^  On  the  12th  of 
October  12 19  peace  was  made  between  William  II  of  the  Genevois, 
then  newly  supplanting  his  half-brother,  Humbert,  and  the  Bishop. 
The  status  quo  was  practically  restored  and  the  Count  performed  his 
liege  homage'.  The  intermediary  of  this  treaty  was  the  Archbishop  of 
Vienne,  and  that  dignitary,  together  with  the  Cardinal-Legate  Bertrand, 
succeeded  in  checkmating  Thomas'  own  schemes.  The  Count  gained 
no  rights  over  his  episcopal  suzerain*.     As  to  the  Sire  de  Thoire,  peace 

^  I  deduce  this  from  the  treaties  with  these  two  Lords.     See  below. 

^  Car.  Reg.  CDLV.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  665):  "Ego  Thomas... promisi... 
Arberto  Domino  de  Turre  quod  dominium  meum  non  crescam  super  dominium 
suum,  nee  etiam  in  aliquo  castro  vel  in  mandamento  castri  ubi  habeat  jus  aliquod 
sive  partem  in  allodiis  vel  feudis  hominum  suorum  nee  in  gardis  nee  in  hominibus 
vel  possessionibus  ubi  jus  suum  vel  dominium  praetendatur."  See  above,  p.  93,  for 
the  older  homage.  In  1228  Arbert  reserves  his  homage  to  the  see  of  Vienne  and  the 
Count  of  Savoy  when  doing  homage  to  the  Archbishop  of  Lyons  (Guigue,  Cartul.  des 
Jiefs  de  P^.glise  de  Lyon,  p.  339).         '  Spon,  Hist,  de  Geneve,  II.  p.  50,  for  document. 

••  The  evidence  for  this  fact  and  the  war  was  pointed  out  by  Hellmann,  pp.  84-5. 
It  is  furnished  by  a  document  (Spon,  ll.  pp.  401  lif.)  shown  by  Mallet  {M.D.G.  vil. 
pp.  347  ff.)  to  refer  to  Bishop  Aymon  and  to  date  from  c.  1227.  Unfortunately  the 
witnesses  in  this  Inquisition  into  the  Bishop's  errors  are  not  above  suspicion.  One 
demonstrably  misrepresents.  The  salient  passages  are  as  follows:  "  (Canon  Aymon's 
evidence)  Rogatus  an  sit  dilapidator  vel  dissipator?  dicit  quod  Dominus  de  Fucigniaco 
fecit  hominium  predecessori  suo  et  isti  non  fecit.  Rogatus  an  fuerit  ab  isto  requisitus 
ut  faceret  ?  dicit  quod  credit  dictum  dominum  de  Fucigniaco  fuisse  requisitum,  sed 
non  fuisse  compulsum.  [Probably  the  Bishop  could  not  defeat  him  in  the  war.]  Dicit 
etiam  quod  cum  comes  Gebennensis  esset  sub  interdicto  et  familia  ejus  propter 
murum  castri  Gebennensis  secundum  compositionem  factam  a  predecessoribus, ... 
episcopus  iste  sic  composuit  cum  comite  quod  nee  comes  nee  familia  ejus  supposita 
est  interdicto  propter  hoc.  [This  absolution  of  the  Count  was  decreed  and  performed 
by  the  Archbishop  of  Vienne  in  121 9.]  ...Item  dicit  quod  de  regalibus  quod  creditur 
a  quibusdam  qu(jd  volebat  se  accipere  a  comite  Sabbaudie,  sed  legatus  Bertrandus  et 
Archiepiscopus  Viennensis  prohibuerunt  ne  fieret  nee  tandem  fuit  factum.  [I  think 
in  view  of  the  foregoing,  we  may  deduct  the  Bishop's  willingness  from  this  statement.] 
...Rogatus  an  sit  tirannus  vel  raptor  potius  quam  presul  vel  rector?... dicit  quod 
episcopus  dedit  capellano  triginta  solidos  (Mallet's  text)  de  emendo  maleficorum 
comitis  Sabbaudie  pro  duodecim  marcis  quas  episcopus  idem  debebat  Capitulo  de 
eadem  emenda.... (Canon  Rodulph's  evidence)  pro  regalibus  tuendis  ad  opus  ecclesie 
que  quasi  alienata  erant  sustinuit  guerram  comitis  Sabaudie  et  multos  labores  sustinuit 
et  multa  expendit,  ita  quod  per  Dei  gratiam  remanserunt  ecclesie.... (William  de 
Closeaz)...guerras  habet  contra  aliquos  homines  sues  sicut  scit." 


392  Count  Thomas'   Italian  conquests 

between  him  and  Thomas  was  delayed  till  December  1224,  when  the 
Archbishop  of  Lyons  arranged  terms.  Here,  too,  the  Count,  under 
the  influence  of  Italian  misfortunes,  retreated  from  his  extremer  claims, 
dating  from  his  treaties  with  the  Abbot  of  St  Rambert  and  the  Sire  of 
New  Coligny^. 

But  Thomas'  alliance  with  his  kindred  of  the  Genevois  and  Faucigny 
formed  only  a  small  part  of  his  political  structure.  Three  marriages 
completed  it.  The  first  was  that  of  his  eldest  son  Amadeus  with  Anna, 
daughter  of  the  Dauphin,  Guigues  VI  Andrew,  which  probably  took 
place  in  1216'^.  As  we  shall  see  it  was  quite  ineffectual  in  securing 
a  permanent  amity  with  the  Dauphine.  The  second  was  that  of 
Thomas'  elder  daughter  Margaret  in  June  1218  with  Hartmann,  later 
called  the  Elder,  Count  of  Kyburgl  By  this  intermarriage  the  breach 
was  closed  with  the  heirs  of  Zahringen  for  some  forty  years,  until  in  fact 
the  House  of  Kyburg  in  its  turn  became  extinct  and  its  possessions 
went  to  the  more  energetic  Habsburgs.  It  must  be  remembered  in 
explanation  that  the  Rectorate  of  Burgundy  with  its  special  claims  was 
not  inherited  by  the  Kyburgs.  At  this  time  it  was  nominally  held  by 
Henry,  King  Frederick  II's  eldest  son,  and  with  his  treason  years  later 
finally  vanishes  from  history.  The  third  match  was  that  about  June  12 19 
of  Thomas'  remaining  daughter  Beatrice  with  Raymond-Berengar  IV, 
Count  of  Provence*.  It  was  to  this  marriage  that  the  four  Queens 
were  born,  who  allied  Savoy  once  more  to  England  and  France ^ 

^  Car.  Reg.  cdlxxx.  See  the  full  copy,  due  to  the  characteristic  courtesy  of 
Sig.  Bori,  now  first  published  in  the  Appendix  of  Documents,  No.  xv.  The 
accounts  of  this  transaction  given  by  Guichenon,  Hist,  de  Bresse  et  Btigty,  iv.  217, 
and  Wurstemberger,  i.  p.  64,  do  not  seem  to  tally  closely  with  the  document.  The 
Count  here  too  gave  a  promise  for  the  future.  "Preterea  nichil  quod  ad  dominium 
domini  de  Vilario  et  domini  de  Toria  pertineat  Comes  et  filii  sui  adquirere  poterunt." 

^  Chron.  Altacumb.  [AI.H.P.  Script.  II.  671)  merely  says:  "Uxor  ejus  prima 
fuit  filia  comitis  Albonensis."  Pingone,  Saxotiiae  Sabaudiaeque  Arbor  Gentilitia 
(ed.  1777,  p.  25),  gives  her  name  as  Anna,  and  her  father  as  Guigues  Andrew. 
She  could  be  the  latter's  daughter  by  his  first  wife  (cf.  Petit,  Hist,  des  Dices  de 
Boiirgogne,  in.  p.  72).  Valbonnais,  Hist.  Dauph.,  calls  her  a  Margaret,  sister  of 
Guigues  Andrew,  but  this  makes  her  too  old,  and  a  Margaret  does  not  appear  in 
Petit,  loc.  cit.  Unfortunately  Pingone,  uncorroborated,  is  worthless.  Amadeus' 
daughter  could  be  married  in  1224  (see  below,  p.  397),  if  only  in  name. 

^  Car.  Reg.  cdlvii.  (Wurstemberger,  iv.  p.  21).    Her  dowry  was  2000  silver  marks. 

^  Car.  Reg.  cdlix.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  120).  This  is  a  treaty  guaranteeing 
Beatrice's  dowry  (2000  marks  like  her  sister's).  Presumably  the  marriage  took  place 
shortly  after  its  date,  5  June  1219.  The  list  of  guaranteeing  vassals  shows  Thomas 
in  possession  of  all  his  Italian  gains,  with  the  addition  of  the  Luserna,  lords  of  the 
Valle  di  Luserna,  etc. 

'  Margaret  married  St  Louis  IX  of  France,  Eleanor  Henry  III  of  England, 
Sancha  Richard  of  Cornwall,  King  of  the  Romans,  and  Beatrice  Charles  of  Anjou, 
King  of  Sicily. 


New  annexations  in  Piedmont  393 

To  sum  up  the  results,  including  the  treaty  in  12 19  with  the  Bishop 
of  Lausanne  \  we  find  that  Thomas  was  in  that  year  in  direct  league 
with  all  the  great  princes  of  Burgundy  from  the  Mediterranean  to  the 
Rhine.     The  omens  were  favourable  for  a  new  Italian  adventure. 


Section  III.    Thomas'  later  years  and  decline 
IN  power. 

The  history  of  Savoy,  so  long  neutral  as  it  has  been,  now  at  last 
affords  us  an  opportunity  of  pointing  a  moral.  It  is  very  trite  to  be 
sure — "vaulting  ambition  doth  o'erleap  itself."  But  it  is  apposite 
enough.  From  almost  all  his  undertakings  Count  Thomas  had  hitherto 
won  profit,  and  perhaps  he  overrated  his  powers  and  good-fortune.  It 
was,  as  before,  the  lure  of  Italian  dominion  which  drew  him  on,  that 
vision  of  the  mark  of  Turin  restored  from  the  Alps  to  the  sea,  of 
a  variegated  state  composed  of  a  heterogeneous  crew  of  vassals  and 
subject  communes.  The  attempt  twice  made  in  these  final  years  of  his 
life  was  again  after  a  brief  glitter  of  success  to  fail,  leaving  him  with 
contracted  dominion  and  lowered  status,  the  vassal  of  a  commune. 
Yet  it  is  the  best  testimony  to  his  real  strength  that  his  successors  were 
little  if  at  all  damaged  by  his  failure. 

It  is  not  necessary  for  the  present  study  to  relate  the  various 
mutations  of  Piedmontese  politics  between  Thomas'  diversion  to  the 
north  and  his  return  to  his  Italian  schemes,  how  Asti  and  Alba  fell 
again  to  blows,  or  how  Chieri,  freed  in  1212  by  Otto  IV  from  the 
leading-strings  of  the  Bishop  of  Turin,  remained  in  discord  with  the 
latter.  One  by  one  most  of  the  communes  recognized  King  Frederick  II, 
as  it  was  soon  obvious  there  would  arise  no  new  competitor;  but  the 
effect  of  this  was  not  so  much  to  stop  the  recurrent  feuds  and  warfare 
as  to  deprive  them  of  their  robe  of  honour,  the  great  imperial  dispute. 

Throughout  Thomas  remained  the  ally  of  Vercelli  and  the  Ottonian 
Lombard  League,  in  spite  of  a  papal  dispensation  from  the  unhallowed 
contract^.  He  even  expressly  renewed  it  on  its  expiry  at  the  end  of 
five  years  in  October  1219''.  The  negotiations  must  have  taken  place 
during  a  successful  summer-campaign  he  made  with  a  force  from  the 

^  See  above,  p.  376. 

^  By  Honorius  III,  Aug.  1216  (B.-W.  Keg.  Imp.  No.  6192).  Cf.  M.H.P.  Chart,  i. 
1338  for  the  continued  alliance  with  Vercelli,  12  Oct.  1217. 

*  Caccianottius,  Siimmarium  ...Vercell.  p.  116:  "29  Oct.  1219,  Responsio  ex 
parte  Comunis  Vercellensis  facta  dominis  Bonifacio  electo  S.  Michaelis  de  CUissa 
et  Priori  de  Aigubella,  missis  et  legatis  domini  Thomae  Comitis  Maurianensis  etc., 
quod  volebat  servare  pacta  inita,  et  habere  pro  inimicis  ejus  inimicos." 


394      Thomas'  later  years  and  decline  in  power 

League  against  the  consortes  of  Bagnolo — his  own  vassals  probably^ — to 
punish  the  brigandage  which  they  called  levying  tolls  I  Thus  secured 
he  could  proceed  with  his  schemes.  The  first  thing  was  to  secure  an 
effective  dominion  in  Pinerolo.  That  little  commune,  in  or  about  the 
year  121 7,  was  engaged  in  disputes  with  its  lord,  the  Abbot  of  Pinerolo, 
John  de  Bourbon,  as  to  the  extent  of  his  rights.  The  judges  nominated 
to  decide  the  question  declared  on  the  23rd  July  1218^  for  the  Abbot  so 
far  as  formal  rule  was  concerned  ;  the  consuls  only  held  their  jurisdiction 
precariously  by  his  grant ;  while  the  jurisdiction  possessed  by  the  Count 
of  Savoy  was  a  genuine  fief  held  from  him*.  An  award  so  conceived 
was  not  likely  to  satisfy  the  townsfolk,  and  it  seems  most  likely  that  the 
Count  intervened  in  1220,  and,  taking  military  possession,  promulgated 
new  civic  statutes ^  Thus  master  of  the  town  he  could  move  farther 
east.  At  the  ford  of  the  Po  on  the  road  to  Asti  lay  the  growing 
Commune  of  Carignano,  later  to  give  a  name  and  title  to  a  famous 
branch  of  the  House  of  Savoy.  Besides  the  Bishop  of  Turin,  the  chief 
lords  here  were  Thomas'  vassals,  the  Marquesses  of  Romagnano ;  but 

^  See  below,  p.  395. 

"^  Carte  del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  III.  2,  p.  281.  The  lords  of  Bagnolo  made  peace 
with  the  league,  and  denied  they  had  plundered  some  Vercellese  pilgrims,  24  Sept. 
1 2 19.  They  also  undertook  " quod...ofFensio  non  fiet  in  avere  vel  personis  illis  tam 
comitis  Sabaudie  quam  Vercellarum  et  Mediolani  et  Placentie  et  Alexandric.qui 
sunt  in  exercitu  Pedum-montium  dum  in  partibus  [istis]  in  exercitu  stabunt." 

^  The  date  in  the  late  copy  we  possess  {Cartario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  11.  p.  no) 
is  Mccxv.  Ind.  VI.  Monday,  X.  Kal.  Aug.  As  Prof.  Gabotto  {ibidem)  has  seen,  we 
must  correct  to  Mccxviii.  when  all  the  dates  agree. 

*  op.  cit.  (p.  115)  "et  habet  in  Pinarolio  leidas  et  curaias  Abbas  et  forum  et  placita 
et  omnem  jurisdictionem  plenarie,  eo  excepto  quod  Comes  tenet  a  Monasterio....Illam 
enim  jurisdictionem  quam  habent  consules  in  Pinarolio  non  a  seipsis  habent,  sed  ab 
Abbate  precario  tenent."  The  Count's  rights  included  the  "contivum"  (id.  p.  no) 
beyond  the  Lemnia  apparently  (id.  p.  109). 

'  This  account  is  based  partly  on  the  Chroniques.  which  give  a  semi-fabulous 
campaign  of  Thomas  in  which  he  conquered  Pinerolo,  Vigone,  Carignano  and 
Moncalieri,  and  besieged  Turin.  Prof.  Gabotto,  VAbazia...di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  i. 
pp.  141-2,  points  out  that  some  doings  of  Thomas'  homonymous  son  have  contaminated 
the  narrative.  But  Vigone  was  really  acquired  by  Thomas  in  1212,  and  whereas 
Pinerolo  was  not  subject  to  him  in  1218,  he  could  prescribe  new  statutes  in  1220 
and  accept  it  in  fief,  with  a  reservation  of  fealty  due  to  the  Abbot,  in  1224  from  Asti 
(see  below).  He  could  also  accept  Carignano  in  fief  from  Asti  at  the  same  time,  and 
Humbert  IH  at  best  had  only  held  half  from  the  Bishop  of  Turin,  and  had  lost  that. 
The  Statutes  of  Pinerolo  were  printed  in  1602  from  a  revision  of  1280;  they  say: 
"  Haec  sunt  statuta  facta  per  illustrissimum  dominum  Thomam  comitem  praefatum 
et  sapientes  Pinerolii  ad  hoc  electos  et  specialiter  constitutos  currente  millesimo  ccxx. 
Indict.  VIII."  The  Consuls,  if  we  may  trust  the  text,  were  replaced  by  the  Count 
(B.S.S.S.  I.  p.  196).  Prof.  Gabotto,  loc.  cit.,  inclines  to  reject  any  special  acquisition 
by  Thomas;  Hellmann,  p.  124,  n.  2,  appears  to  abandon  any  definite  narrative. 
Carutti  (B.S.S.S.  i.  pp.  195-6)  accepts  it  with  too  many  imaginative  details. 


Revolt  of  Thomas'   Piedmontese  vassals        395 

they  had  wisely  acceded  to  the  communal  form  of  government,  it  seems, 
and  now  must  have  been  its  most  influential  members.  The  town,  we 
may  presume,  surrendered  to  Thomas  without  a  siege ;  no  garrison  was 
placed  there  probably,  but  the  Count's  dominion  stretched  to  the  Po, 
and  his  wrathful  neighbours  found  a  wedge  of  Savoyard  land  forced 
among  them  commanding  the  routes  of  war  and  peace  \  Nor  did  this 
suffice  him.  In  the  same  year  he  induced  one  of  the  Marquesses  of 
Busca,  Otto  Boverio,  to  convert  his  possessions  at  Bra  and  Fontane  far 
south  on  the  road  to  Alba  into  fiefs  of  Savoy*.  It  was  a  rash  addition 
to  his  territory,  alarming  to  the  Communes. 

But  he  had  already  aroused  the  hostility  of  most  of  his  Piedmontese 
vassals  and  neighbours.  It  was  in  the  summer  of  1220  probably  that 
their  alarm  and  wrath  ripened  into  action.  The  soul  of  the  movement 
was  apparently  that  Giacomo,  Bishop  of  Turin,  who  since  August  12 18 
had  been  Frederick  IFs  Vicar  in  West  Lombardy^  With  him  and  his 
Commune  were  linked  Testona^  and  the  chief  castellans  of  Piedmont 
proper.  King  Frederick  II,  whom  Thomas  almost  alone,  perhaps 
through  enmity  to  the  Bishop  of  Turin,  still  refused  to  recognize,  could 
not  but  be  favourable  to  the  new  league,  and  when  the  lords  of 
Piossasco,  together  with  their  consortes  and  vassals  of  Cavour  and 
Bagnolo  and  Barge,  and  even  of  the   Val  di   Stura  di  Ala^   became 

^  See  last  note  for  the  reference  to  Carignano  in  the  Chroniques.  That  Thomas 
did  not  have  military  possession  of  the  place  is  shown  by  the  treaty  with  Asti  in  1224 
(see  below),  where,  while  he  does  not  include  the  town  among  his  revolted  subjects, 
he  yet  cannot  guarantee  the  inhabitants  swearing  fealty  to  Asti,  in  consequence  of  his 
holding  it  henceforward  in  fief  from  the  latter  city.  "  Et  comes  promisit  et  juravit 
quod  usque  ad  tres  annos  faciet  fieri  fidelitatem  vel  ante  si  poterit  ab  hominibus 
Cargnani  comuni  Astensi."  Prof.  Gabotto,  wrongly  I  think,  equates  this  special 
clause  concerning  Carignano  with  the  general  one,  where  the  Count  promises  fealty 
to  Asti  for  such  of  the  lands  etc.  in  rebellion  from  him  as  he  may  recover.  A  separate 
list  is  given.     (See  below.) 

^  Prof.  Gabotto,  VAbazia...di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  i.  p.  144. 

^  Neues  Archiv,  xxiv.  220  ff. ;  cf.  Hellmann,  p.  94.  He  continues  to  hold  the 
appointment  in  name  at  least  after  the  nomination  of  Bishop  Conrad  of  Metz  as 
legatus  for  the  whole  kingdom  of  Italy,  17  April  1220.     (B.-F.  Reg.  Imp.  No.  iioi.) 

*  Testona's  adhesion  to  the  League  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  alliance  of  Turin 
with  Manfred  III  of  Saluzzo  was  concluded  there.     (See  below.) 

'  Val  Matri  (i.e.  Mathi)  is  the  term  in  Frederick's  diploma  by  which  alone  we 
know  the  fact.  Hellmann,  p.  95,  confuses  this  Mathi  with  Mattie  near  Susa.  The 
Val  di  Susa  could  hardly  be  named  after  this  place,  which  had  been  given  to  the 
Abbey  of  Susa  in  1212,  besides  the  improbability  of  such  an  alliance.  Thomas  had 
some  claims  on  Cirie  near  Mathi,  as  had  the  Marquess  of  Montferrat.  Perhaps  the 
war  of  1200  or  the  successes  of  Amadeus  III  produced  them  :  in  support  of  the  latter 
view  I  may  note  that  the  erstwhile  Savoyard  vassals,  the  Counts  of  Castellamonte, 
had  given  the  Val  di  Mathi  in  fief  to  the  Viscounts  of  Baratonia,  who  held  it  in  1220 
(Rondolino,  Dei  Visconti  di  Torino,  Boll.  stor.  bibl.  subalp.,  Anni  vi.  p.  388,  vii. 
p.  218). 


39^       Thomas'  later  years  and  decline  in  power 

citizens  of  Turin,  he  at  once  issued  a  diploma  of  confirmation^  At 
the  same  time  he  favoured  the  opponents  of  Chieri,  still  recalcitrant  to 
the  Bishop  and  himself^. 

So  the  war  began  and  rapidly  spread.  In  June  1221  the  Counts  of 
Biandrate  in  quest  of  their  rights  over  Chieri  joined  the  leagued  Far 
more  important  was  the  adhesion  of  Saluzzo.  On  the  5th  of  July  1222, 
Manfred  III  became  a  citizen  of  Turin  with  the  express  provision  that 
he  should  join  in  the  war  against  Thomas  of  Savoy ^  Against  these 
banded  foes  the  Count  was  not  unsuccessful.  He  seems  to  have 
captured  Cavour  from  the  Piossasco  and  Borgo  S.  Dalmazzo  either 
from  Manfred  III  or  from  some  ally  of  his  I  Certain  vassals  of  the 
Marquess,  too,  revolted",  and  the  Count  began  his  scheme  of  building 
a  new  town  on  the  Po  to  guard  his  southern  frontier,  if  indeed  the  steps 
he  had  taken   towards  this  were  not  the  cause   of   the   rupture  with 

^  B.-F.  Reg.  Imp.  No.  1213,  M.H.P.  Leges  Munic.  i.  517,  24  Nov.  1220. 
"  Cum  de  nostra  voluntate  processerit  et  mandato  quod  fideles  nostri  domini  de 
Plozascho  et  homines  item  de  Bagnolio  et  Caburo  et  de  Bargiis,  de  Publiciis,  de 
Scalengis  atque  de  Valle  Matii  fecerint  in  Thaurino  eorum  habitaculum,  pacta  et 
conventiones  inter  ipsos  et  civitatem  Thaurinensem  initas...confirmamus."  The 
Piossasco  had  acquired  Piobesi  in  fief  from  the  Bishop  in  1193  (see  above);  they 
were  lords  of  Upper  Cavour  (Car.  Reg.  DLX.),  and  consignori  in  Scalenghe  (di  Vesme, 
B.S.S.S.  I.  p.  45).  I  should  again  emphasize  that  the  consorzeria  which  held  each 
township  was  usually  made  up  of  diverse  elements  who  formed  parts  of  other  con- 
sorzerie  elsewhere,  and  might,  like  the  Piossasco  or  Romagnano,  be  united  by  a 
special  family  bond  as  well. 

-  B.-F.  Reg.  Imp.  No.  979,  annulling  the  Bishop's  concession  of  Montossolo,  and 
No.  12 1 1  {Carte  del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  III.  2,  p.  284),  which  grants  Celle  to  the 
consortes  of  Revigliasco  and  Trofarello.  I  confess  that  to  me  this  grant  seems  more 
injurious  to  Testona  than  to  Chieri ;  but  see  Gabotto  (B.S.S.S.  I.  p.  145). 

^  B.-F.  Reg.  Imp.  No.  1341,  in  which  Frederick  II  regrants  Chieri  to  the  Counts, 
an  evidence  of  their  junction  with  the  league  (cf.  Hellmann,  p.  956). 

^  Car.  Reg.  cdlxix.  (M.H.P.,  Leges  Munic.  i.  514):  "  Manfredus  marchio  de 
Salutiis...juravit...perpetuale  habitaculum  civitatis  Thaurini,  ita  quod  semper  erit 
civis...Item,  quod  juvabit... commune  Thaurini... cum  tota  sua  terra,  quam  habet 
ipse  marchio  citra  Tanarum,  sive  fiumen  Tanari,  de  omni  guerra... contra  aliquem 
hominem...et  specialiter  de  ilia  guerra,  quam  ipsi  Thaurinenses  habent  contra  comitem 
Maurianensem  et  filios,  nee  de  ilia  guerra  vel  guerris  faciet  treguam  nee  pacem  ali- 
quam  absque  consensu... Communis  Thaurini.... Nullomodo  faciet... aliquam  parentelam 
nee  contractum  matrimonii  cum  Thoma  comite  Maurianensi,  nee  cum  aliquo  filiorum 
suorum  sine... consensu  Potestatis... Thaurini."  Manfred  Ill's  hostility  was  probably 
due  to  Thomas'  southern  schemes.  The  marriage -project  may  have  been  suggested 
by  Thomas  as  a  means  of  reconciliation. 

^  These  facts  are  deduced  from  the  subsequent  treaties  (see  below).  From  the 
same  sources  we  know  that  the  Count's  men  from  Vigone  etc.  made  an  unsuccessful 
raid  between  Bra  and  Racconigi. 

*  See  below.  Bersezio  in  the  Val  di  Stura  di  Demonte,  and  Vignolo,  held  by 
Thomas'  vassals,  the  lords  of  Bernezzo,  were  the  rebel  towns.  It  was  there  clearly  a 
case  of  conflicting  vassalage. 


Disadvantageous  peace  397 

Manfred  IIP.  But  Thomas'  allies,  Vercelli  and  Novara,  held  aloof. 
He  was  involved  in  a  war  in  the  Vallais,  and  must  have  found  himself 
helpless  against  Turin.  At  any  rate  early  in  1223  he  is  concluding, 
partly  with  Vercelli's  mediation,  a  series  of  peaces.  The  first,  dated 
probably  in  February  1223,  was  with  Turin  and  her  Bishop;  it  was 
a  truce  only,  and  the  terms  are  lost^.  The  treaty  with  the  Castellans  of 
Piedmont,  the  lords  of  Piossasco,  Bagnolo  and  Barge  followed  on  the 
26th  of  April,  a  separate,  now  lost,  document  having  been  executed 
between  Thomas  and  the  lords  of  Lower  Cavour.  By  this  peace  Upper 
Cavour  was  ceded  to  Thomas,  but  he  promised  to  make  no  further 
acquisitions  from  members  of  a  consorzeria,  without  the  consent  of  all 
the  consortes,  a  concession  which  hints  at  one  cause  of  the  war.  The 
rebels  were  again  to  do  homage  and  receive  due  investiture  ^  Mean- 
while on  the  4th  of  March  peace  had  been  concluded  with  Manfred  III, 
distinctly  to  the  latter's  advantage.  Thomas  again  receded  from  the 
ambitions  he  had  too  readily  taken  up.  He  promised  to  surrender 
the  castle  of  S.  Dalmazzo''  and  secure  the  submission  of  Vignolo  to  the 
Marquess.  He  engaged  not  to  build  a  new  town  south  of  Carignano. 
He  added  to  Manfred  Ill's  former  fief  the  homage  of  the  Marquess  of 
Busca  and  that  of  the  lords  of  Bernezzo  for  Bernezzo.  Finally  to 
cement  the  new  accord  he  gave  his  grand-daughter,  Beatrice,  eldest 
child  of  his  heir  Amadeus,  in  marriage  to  the  Marquess.  Borgo 
S.  Dalmazzo  was  to  be  her  dowry''. 

'  i.e.  Villafranca,  a  great  object  of  suspicion  to  Thomas'  southern  neighbours  (see 
below). 

^  It  is  referred  to  in  Thomas'  letter  of  thanks  to,  and  request  for  further  mediation 
from,  Vercelli  itself,  received  28  Feb.  1223  (Car.  Rrg.  cdlxxiii.  {M.H.P.  Chart,  il. 
c.  1311). 

*  Car.  Reg.  CDLXXVi.  {Carte  del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  iii.  2,  p.  287).  The  date  of 
the  day  of  the  week  (26th)  is  to  be  followed  in  preference  to  that  of  the  month  (27th) : 
"comes  non  debeat  aliquid  aquistum  facere  in  aliquo  consortili  castellanorum  Pede- 
montis  qui  fecerunt  guerram  predicto  comiti...vel  qui  adjuvabant  episcopum  vel 
comune  Taurini  nisi  de  voluntate  tocius  consortilis,  excepto  in  Cavurro  Superiori 
quern  modo  tenet  ipse  Comes,  et  salvis...concordiis  factis  inter  ipsum  comitem...et 
castellanos  de  Cavurro  Inferiori...in  instrumento... facto  (1223  March  12)."  Neither 
.  side  was  henceforth  to  receive  the  other's  vassals  in  their  lands  without  the  consent 
of  the  vassal's  lord. 

■*  To  the  Marquess,  if  possible,  otherwise  to  the  Abbey  or  the  inhabitants.  The 
Bishop  of  Asti,  who  had  had  claims  on  the  place  (see  above,  p.  361,  n.  i),  is  not 
mentioned,  although  he  had  taken  part  in  the  war  (Chiesa,  c.  895). 

'  The  documents  of  the  peace  number  eight.  They  are:  (i)  Reg.  March.  Saluzzo, 
B.S.S.S.  XVI.  No.  249,  the  peace  itself,  4  March,  known  through  a  summary  by 
G.  della  Chiesa  {M.H.P.  Chart,  ni.  894);  (2)  id.  No.  250  {id.  p.  347),  6  March,  the 
investiture  of  Manfred  III;  (3)  ?£f.  No.  251,  the  fealty  of  Manfred  III;  (4)  /a?.  No.  252 
(Chiesa,  895),  8  March,  the  sale  to  Manfred  III  of  their  possessions  in  Bernezzo  and 
Vignolo  etc.  by  the  consortes  of  Bernezzo,  who  were  now  transplanted  to  Savoyard 


398       Thomas'  later  years  and  decline  in  power 

But  the  inhabitants  seem  to  have  revolted  and  submitted  to  their 
Abbot,  and  we  find  Thomas  paying,  and  in  arrears  with,  his  grand- 
daughter's dowry  in  cash  three  years  later'.  A  more  complete  with- 
drawal would  be  hard  to  imagine ;  for  the  overlordship  reserved  to 
Thomas  over  the  ceded  homages,  indirect  as  it  was,  scarcely  furnished 
any  real  hold  on  the  territory.  It  is  obvious  there  must  have  been  some 
pressing  reason  for  Thomas'  action,  and  this  must  be  found  in  the 
attitude  of  Asti.  The  great  Commune  was  now  at  last  freed  from  her 
southern  rivalries  for  a  time.  In  April  she  was  forming  again  a  union 
with  Alba^ :  in  September  she  was  to  make  an  alliance  with  Alessandria*. 
Thomas'  movement  southwards  and  his  acquisition  of  Brk  on  the  south- 
western road  could  never  be  endured  by  her  for  long.  The  Count's 
treaties  with  Turin  and  the  Castellans  were  at  best  precarious,  and  Asti 
under  the  circumstances  could  offer  him  a  deadly  enmity  or  an 
oppressive  friendship.  To  her  threats  I  think  we  may  attribute  his 
pliancy'*. 

He  had  troubles  also  in  the  north  to  distract  his  attention,  for  the 
good  understanding  he  had  maintained  with  Landric,  Bishop  of  Sion, 

territory;  (5)  id.  No.  253  (Chiesa,  896),  Countess  Alice  of  Saluzzo  pardons  the  men 
of  Bersezio ;  (6)  id.  No.  256  {id.  p.  350),  27  Sept.  1223,  Count  Thomas  releases 
Marquess  William  of  Busca  from  his  oath  of  fealty;  (7)  id.  No.  257  {id.  p.  250), 
27  Sept.  Manfred  III  invests  William  of  Busca  with  Busca  and  Scarnafigi ;  (8)  Car. 
Sup.  Lxxx.  {M.H.P.  Chart.  11.  1343)  2  Oct.  1227,  Henry  of  Carretto  makes  an 
arrangement  re  the  unpaid  part  of  Beatrice's  dowry.  Chiesa  (No.  249)  has:  "el 
juro  esso  Conte  che  infra  i8  giorny  apresso  Pascha  proxima  (23  Ap.)  darebe  soa 
nepota.... Beatrix  per  moglie  al  ditto  Manfredo....Per...dota  ditto  Conte  remetera 
in...baylia...di  ditta  Alaxia  el  castello  del  Borgo  di  S°.  Dalmacio....Promette  ditto 
conte  de  dare  in  feudo  gentile  le  ragione  quale  ha  sopra. ...Gulielmo  dy  Buscha...e 
sopra  ly  signory  de  Bernezo  e  castel  e  villa  de  Bernezo....Promette  che  il  castel  de 

Vignolo  sara  restituito  al  Marchexe Non  si  fara  di  novo  loco  alcuno  ne  villa  dy 

Cargnano  in  suso 11  conte  restituisca  el  castel  dy  San   Dalmacio  al....Manfredo 

Marchexe  overo  al  capitulo  di  la  gesia  di  San  Dalmacio  overo  aly  hominy  del  Borgo 
dy  San  Dalmacio.  Fatto  questo  Manfredo  marchexe  jura  di  fare  la  fidelita  al  conte 
de... feudo  vechio  e  novo."  That  the  marriage  really  took  place  within  the  term 
mentioned  is  made  probable  by  the  fact  that  Beatrice  is  his  wife  in  May  1224  {Reg. 
March.  Saluzzo,  No.  265;  Sella,  Codex. ..de  Malabayla,  No.  696)  and  in  Oct.  1227 
(Car.  Sup.  LXXX.  M.H.P.  Chart.  11.  1343),  which  disposes  of  the  old  view  that  she 
was  only  married  in  1233.     She  is  still  under  twelve  years  old  in  May  1224. 

1  See  Car.  Sup.  LXXX.  and  preceding  note. 

2  Rig....Albe,  B.S.S.S.  xxi.  p.  i. 

^  Sella,  Codex. ..de  Malabayla,  No.  loro. 

■*  The  account  given  of  this  war  agrees  in  the  main  either  with  that  of  Gabotto  or 
that  of  Hellmann,  who  differ  considerably ;  I  do  not  think  either  of  them  points  out 
that  Thomas'  project  of  a  new  town  was  one  of  Manfred's  grievances.  Gabotto  thinks 
the  acquisition  of  Upper  Cavour  was  one  of  the  Castellans'  casus  belli,  but  since  its 
former  owners  were  the  Piossasco  themselves,  it  seems  more  like  to  be  a  conquest  in 
the  war. 


New  Treaty  with  the  Bishop  of  Sion  399 

had  broken  down.  Perhaps  his  purchase  of  part  of  Saillon  from  its 
lord  in  1221  had  injured  the  Bishop's  rights ^  A  war,  favourable  to 
Thomas,  seems  to  have  followed,  which  was  ended  in  1224  by  a 
moderate  peace.  Most  of  the  clauses  are  devised  to  maintain  the  status 
quo  ante  in  the  Vallais,  and  to  prevent  complications  arising  from  the 
entanglement  of  the  various  fiefs  held  from  the  Bishop  and  the  Count 
respectively.  The  Bishop  acknowledged  his  vassalage  for  the  regalia 
and  his  feudal  duty  of  protecting  Chillon  even  against  the  Emperor, 
and  he  received  in  return  an  ordinary  landed  fief  in  the  castle  of  Morgex 
close  to  his  city'-.  The  treaty  was  well  meant,  but,  as  none  of  the  real 
difficulties — the  partial  independence  of  the  Bishop  and  the  intertwining 
of  lands  and  rights — were  done  away  with,  it  is  no  wonder  that  hostilities 
recommenced  before  Thomas  died.  For  the  moment,  however,  there 
was  peace,  and  since  in  December  1224  his  differences  with  the  Sire 
de  Thoire  were  also  settled  ^  he  could  employ  all  his  thoughts  on 
Lombardy. 

In  Lombardy,  indeed,  the  outlook  was  far  from  hopeful,  from 
Thomas'  point  of  view.  Besides  the  unrest  among  his  vassals,  the 
power  of  Asti  was  advancing  by  leaps  and  bounds.  Through  the 
good  accord  that  Chieri  kept  with  her,  the  latter  Commune  was  able 
to  bar  out  the  interference  of  the  Bishop  of  Turin*  and  the  Counts 
of  Biandrate'.     Asti  herself  quickly  brought  the  Marquess  of  Saluzzo 

1  Car.  Reg.  cdlxv.  {M.D.R.  xxix.  p.  233).  The  lord  of  Saillon,  Aymon  de  Pont- 
verre,  was  compensated  with  Ugines  in  Tarentaise.  He  was  not  the  sole  lord  of 
Saillon,  but  he  seems  to  have  been  head  of  the  family.  The  extension  of  the  Count's 
direct  demesne  up  the  Vallais  towards  Sion  may  have  disquieted  the  Bishop. 

2  Car.  Reg.  cdlxxviii.  {M.D.R.  xxix.  p.  241) :  "  antiqua  pacta  et  licita...rata  in 
perpetuum  permaneant....Item  ecclesia  Sedunensis  non  possit  aliquid  acquirere  de 
rebus  comitatus  sine  ipsius  comitis  voluntate. ...Item  comes  non  posset  aliquid  acquirere 
de  rebus  ecclesie  sine  episcopi  et  capituli  voluntate.... Dedit  comes  episcopo  et  ecclesie 
Sedunensi  in  augmentum  feudi  feudum  de  Morgi.  Et  pro  feudo  isto  debet  ei  epis- 
copus  Sedunensis  in  decessu  episcopi  xv.  lb.  de  placito  ;  ita  viz.  ut  cum  placitum  de 
regalibus  evenerit,  tunc  placitum  de  Morgi  reddatur  cum  ipso,  ita  ut  XC.  lb.  insimul 
persolvantur....Item  ecclesia  Sedunensis  non  tenetur  comiti  facere  exercitum  nisi  usque 
ad  rivum  Aquefrigide  et  usque  ad  summitatem  Montis  Jovis...excepto  debito  servitio 
de  Morgi.  Verum  si  quis  potens  homo  veniret  ad  expugnandum  castrum  de  Chillon, 
tenetur  episcopus  pro  posse  suo  venire  ad  defensionem  dicti  castri."  Eau  Froide 
formed  the  northern  limit  of  the  Vallais.  The  curious  clause  as  to  Chillon,  as 
M.  Carrard  {M.D.R.  Ser.  II.  Vol.  I.  pp.  290-1)  has  pointed  out,  must  refer  to  the 
Emperor,  then  still  at  enmity  with  Thomas.  The  obligation,  be  it  noticed,  is  that 
of  a  suzerain  to  his  vassal,  for  Thomas  held  Chillon  from  the  Bishop  of  Sion  (see 
above,  p.  92). 

•*  See  aljove,  pp.  391-2. 

*  Cibrario,  Delle  storie  di  Chieri,  i.  100  ;  dated  18  June  1224.     The  Bishop  gave 
up  his  claims  to  Montossolo. 
"  id.  p.  loi,  II.  p.  82. 


400       Thomas'  later  years  and  decline  in  power 

to  book  for  long  arrears  of  his  feudal  dues.  We  may  presume  it  was 
after  an  unfortunate  war  that  in  May  1224  he  submitted  and,  as 
compensation,  received  two  of  his  townships,  Carmagnola  opposite 
Carignano  by  the  Po  and  Lequio  in  the  Langhe,  as  additional  fiefs 
from  the  conqueror'.  Thomas  of  Savoy  himself  was  present  at  Asti  at 
the  conclusion  of  this  treaty  and  may  have  been  already  negotiating  for 
one  of  his  own.  His  old  political  system  was  breaking  down.  In 
March  1224,  it  is  true,  he  renewed  the  alliance  with  Vercelli^;  but  in 
May,  the  very  time  he  was  at  Asti,  Vercelli  was  already  contemplating 
a  merely  neutral  attitude ^  Probably  it  was  the  hard  terms  proffered  by 
Asti  which  delayed  his  change  of  attitude.  But  the  trend  of  events 
was  too  strong  for  him.  It  must  have  been  in  1224  that  his  old  enemies 
among  the  Piedmontese  castellans  rose  in  arms  again ;  with  them 
revolted  his  new  acquisition,  Pinerolo^;  and  both  sections  of  the  rebels 
found  an  ally  in  Turin.  As  the  Piossasco  and  their  friends  were  already 
citizens  of  the  latter  city,  so  now  Pinerolo  accepted  an  act  of  union, 
and  appears  under  the  same  Podesta^.  Testona,  finding  Chieri  more 
dangerous  to  her  peace  than  the  greater  city — there  was  the  old  question 
of  rival  routes  involved — stood  on  the  same  side.  Thomas  now 
hesitated  no  longer.  On  the  13th  of  September  he  was  again  at  Asti, 
submitting  to  the  great  Commune's  terms.  The  sacrifices  he  was  forced 
to  make  were  heavy.  Bra  and  Fontane,  his  acquisitions  by  the  Tanaro, 
were  ceded  outright.  Carignano,  Vigone  and  Cumiana  he  surrendered 
to  receive  again  in  vassalage,  and,  since  there  were  doubts  whether  he 
could  compel  the  Commune  of  Carignano  to  accept  a  dependence  from 
Asti,  his  townships  of  Miradolo  and  Cavour  under  the  Alps  were  to  be 
substituted  if  necessary.  Further,  whatever  he  reconquered  from  his 
rebels,  Pinerolo,  the  Piossasco  and  the  others,  and  whatever  he  acquired 
from  his  Lombard  foes  were  to  be  held  in  fief  from  Asti.     He  was  to 

1  Reg.  March.  Saliizzo,  B.S.S.S.  xvi.  No.  265  (Sella,  Codex. ..de  Malabayla, 
No.  696). 

-  Caccianottius,  Stimmarium...VercelUns,  p.  143:  "9  Feb.  1224,  Renovatio... 
ligae  anni  1215... inter  comitem  Thomam  de  Mauriana...ac  d.  Amadeum  ejus  folium, 
et  Comune  Vercellense,  requirente  d.  Alberto  Tetavegla  Vercellensi  ejusdem  d.  Co- 
mitis  procuratore."     Cf.  also  loc.  cit.  3  March  1224,  and  p.  144,  12  Ap.  1224. 

3  Caccianottius,  Swntnariiim  ...Vercellens,  p.  145,  Treaty  (18  May  1224)  with 
Peter  Count  of  Masino.  Vercelli  reserves  Milan,  Alessandria  and  the  Counts  o 
Biandrate  ;  "et  eveniente  guerra  inter  ipsos  (i.e.  Milan  etc.)  vel  comitem  Sabaudiae 
ac  eundem  Petrum,  Comune  Vercellense  debeat  se  intromittere  amicabiliter  ad  com- 
ponendum  pacem." 

^  A  leading  noble  of  Pinerolo,  Bersatorio,  was  still  loyal  to  Thomas  in  April  1223 
(Car.  Reg.  cdlxxvi.,  Carte  del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  ill.  2,  p.  287).  This  was 
pointed  out  by  Gabotto,  VAbazia...di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  i.  p.  155. 

5  The  union  had  taken  place  by  13  July  1228  (Car.  Reg.  Dxv. ;  Cartario  di 
Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  11.  p.  123). 


Alliance  with  Asti  401 

make  no  fresh  acquisitions  south  of  the  Po,  and  only  to  build  the  new 
town,  all  his  own,  that  he  was  hankering  after,  under  Asti's  suzerainty 
and  by  her  leave.  Finally  he  was  to  provide  a  road  for  the  Astigians, 
leading  from  the  Val  di  Susa,  via  Vigone  and  Carignano,  to  their  city. 
The  Commune  was  to  prescribe  the  tolls  and  take  half  the  proceeds, 
nor  in  his  ultramontane  lands  even  was  the  Count  to  levy  more  than 
had  been  customary.  With  their  common  enemy,  Turin,  he  was  only 
to  conclude  a  peace  with  his  new  suzerain's  consent ;  and — fitting  crown 
of  the  treaty,  and  symbol  of  the  high-aspiring  pride  of  a  city-state — in 
the  diversion  of  the  Po  from  Turin  uphill  to  Asti  and  the  Tanaro 
he  was  to  use  his  best  endeavour  \  It  did  not  hd.-p-^tn ;  Jluviorum  rex 
Eridatiiis  flows  now,  as  it  did  in  the  days  of  Hannibal  or  of  Virgil, 
beside  Turin.  On  his  broad  smooth  waters  are  still  mirrored  the 
campanili  and  the  green  hills  of  Montferrat.  Turin,  magnified  and 
growing,  an  industrial  metropolis,  lies  stretched  along  his  banks.     Thence 

^  Car.    Reg.    CBXXix.  =  Su/.    lxi.x.    (Sella,    Codex. ..de    Malabayla,    No.    656). 
"Thomas  Comes... donavit... Potestati  Astensi  nomine  Comunis  Astensis... dominium 

Brayde  et  Fontanarum...et  maxima  fidelitates Item  donavit... dominium... Cargnani 

et  Vigoni  et  Cumaniane....Et  Comune  Astense  investivit  dictum  Comitem...in  gentile 
feudum...de  Vigono,  Cargnano  et  Cumaniana....Et  Comes  promisit  et  juravit  quod 
usque  ad  tres  annos  faciei  fieri  fidelitatem  vel  ante  si  poterit  ab  hominibus  Cargnani 
Comuni  Astensi.  Et  interim... faciei  fieri  fidelitatem  dicto  Comuni  ab  hominibus  suis 
de  Cavuro  el  ab  hominibus  Miradolii,  qui  teneantur  fidelitale  Comuni  Astensi  quo- 
usque  homines  Cargnani  Comuni  Astensi  fidelitatem  fecerint.... Item... Comes  juravit 
...quod  accipiet  in  feudum...a  Comuni  Astensi  totam  illam  terram  que  est  de  comilatu 
el  marchionatu...quam  ipse  modo  non  tenet,  vel  de  qua  ipsi  qui  earn  tenent  sibi  sunt 
conlrarii...el  specialiter  illi  qui  sunt  conjurati  Taurinensium  citra  monies  et  omnes  illi 

qui  tenent  suam  terram  citra  monies Hec  est  terra. ..que  est  sibi  contraria,  Ciriata, 

Plozaschum,  Barge,  Bagnolium,  Pinayrolium  et  tola  alia  terra  quam  modo  non  tenet... 
el  de  qua...leneatur  Comes  facere  fidelitatem  Comuni  Astensi,  salva  fidelitale  Abbatis 

Pinayrolii  de  facto  Pinayrolii Item  quod  Comes  non  possil  aliquid  acquirere  citra 

Padum  versus  civitalem  Aslensem  el  episcopalum  et  terram  Marchionis  de  Salucio... 

salvo  jure  Comitis  quod  habet  in  Boves  et  salvo  jure  Comunis  quod  habet  in  Boves 

Item  leneatur... Comes  dare  slralam  Comuni  Astensi  venientem  per  Secusiam  el  S. 
Ambrosium...lali  modo  quod  strata... veniat  per  Vigonum  et  per  Cargnanum  versus 
civitalem  Aslensem... tali  modo  quod... pro  pedagio  accipialur  ab  hominibus  de  Asle 
el  ab  extraneis  tantum  quantum  ordinatum  fuerit  per...Comitem  el  Comune  Astense 
...ita  tamen  quod...pedagium  dividatur  per  medium  inter... Comitem  el  Comune 
Astense — Item  leneatur  Comes  omnes  malas  loltas  novas  et  inconsuelas  hominibus 
de  Aste  dimittere  in  tola  sua  terra.... Item  Comes  non  possil  facere  pacem  nee 
Ireuguam  cum  Taurinensibus  quin  Comune  de  Aste  sit  in  dicta  pace  et  Ireugua.... 
Item  leneatur  Comes  dare  forciam  Comuni  et  hominibus  de  Asle  et  consilium  el 
auxilium  ducendi  Padum  ad  civitalem  Aslensem,  si  Astenses  voluerinl.  Item  si 
aliquis  locus  novus  fieret  in  comitalu  vel  marchionalu  citra  monies  cum  voluntale 
Comitis,  quod  Comes  ilium  a  Comuni  lenere  debeat  in  feudum,...el  nuUus  locus  ibi 
fieri  possil  sine  voluntate  Comitis  et  Comunis  Astensis."  I  omit  many  details  of  less 
account.  The  treaty  was  completed  by  Car.  Sup.  i.xx.  [Cod.  Malab.  No.  657),  LXXI 
(id.  No.  658),  LXXIII.  (id.  No.  660),  and  LXXIV.  (id.  No.  659). 

P.  O.  26 


402       Thomas'  later  years  and  decline  in  power 

you  may  go  by  the  Rome  express  for  Alessandria  and  Florence ;  and  if 
you  like  you  can  get  out  at  the  first  stop  to  see  the  red-brick  towers  and 
walls  and  the  Romanesque  baptistry  of  Asti,  that  pleasant  and  thriving 
country-town. 

Asti's  predominance,  however,  and  the  overweening  greed  which 
accompanied  it,  almost  immediately  began  to  work  the  diminution  of 
her  power.  Already  in  October  1224  her  partner  Alba  was  bitterly 
complaining  that  she  had  no  share  in  the  profits  of  the  treaties  with 
Saluzzo  and  Savoy' :  and  the  fact  that  war  had  commenced  between 
Genoa  and  her  northern  neighbours,  Alessandria  and  Tortona",  the  first 
of  which  was  Asti's  continual  rival,  made  the  general  situation  along 
the  Apennines  dangerous  in  the  extreme.  None  the  less  the  preparations 
against  the  Turinese  confederacy  were  pushed  on.  In  January  1225 
Count  Thomas  had  arrived  in  Susa  from  Lyons'*;  and  in  May  the  army 
of  the  allies  was  ravaging,  without  much  result,  the  fields  of  Turin"'. 
But  by  June  it  was  back  in  Asti  for  urgent  need.  A  month  or  two 
before  the  final  breach  with  Alba  must  have  come ;  and,  while  Alba 
joined  the  Alessandrians®,  Asti  made  an  alliance  with  Genoa".  Vercelli, 
Thomas'  own  nominal  ally,  was  actively  aiding  Alessandria,  and  so  the 
whole  of  Piedmont  was  involved  once  more  in  war. 

Asti  at  once  insisted  that  her  vassal  should  lend  his  aid,  and 
accordingly  we  find  Thomas  on  the  loth  of  June  becoming  a  condotticre 
— a  very  early  specimen  of  his  trade — in  Genoa's  service.  For  a  good 
round  sum  he  was  to  lead  in  person  180  knights  to  the  war,  with  their 
proper  train  of  sergeants  and  squires.  He  himself  fell  ill  and  could 
not  come,  but  he  sent  the  troops  to  join  the  Genoese  host  at  Gavi 
in  the  Langhe''.     Meanwhile  in  this  distortion  of  his  plans  he  seems  to 

1  Rig....Albe,  B.S.S.S.  xxi.  p.  45:  "Homines  Albe  credebant  quod... homines 
Ast  non  bene  observaverant  concordiam  silicet  in  aquisto  Carmagnolearum  etc.  et 
in  facto  et  aquisto  Comitis  de  Sabaudia." 

2  Barth.  Scrib.  Attn.  Jan.  1224. 

'^  Car.  Sup.  LXXli.  {Carte  del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  ill.  2,  p.  293).  Cf.  above, 
p.  484. 

■*  Car.  Sup.  LXXili.,  LXXIV.  {Cod.  Malab.  Nos.  660,  659). 

5  B.-W.  Reg.  Imp.  No.  12907. 

6  Ogg.  Alf.  (Sella,  Codex... de  Malabayla,  Cap.  11,  p.  59). 

"^  Car.  Reg.  CDLXXXVI.  (Sclopis,  Considerazioni  storiche . . .intorno  a  Tominaso  /, 
Mem.  R.  Accad.  Scien.  di  Torino,  xxxiv.  p.  89) :  "  (Comes)  habebit  in  servitio 
Communis  Januae  milites  bonos  de  Burgundia  CLXXX.  guarnitos...et  de  ipsis  militibus 
habebit  lxxx.  apud  Ast...et  ipse  (a  few  days  later)  in  propria  persona  erit  apud  Ast 
cum  aliis  c.  militibus... et  serviet  Communi  Januae... per  menses  duos."'  Barth.  Scrib. 
Ann.  Jan.  1225  {M.G.H,  Script,  xvili.  p.  158)  is  slightly  more  graphic:  "Comes 
Thomas  de  Sabaudia... cum  200  militibus  et  Alabragibus  (i.e.  Savoyards)  usque 
menses  duos  stare  in  exercitu  ad  servitium...Janue  tenebatur,  et  inde...habuit  libras 

16  pro  milite  cum  donzello  armatis  et  duobus  scutiferis  omni  mense Qui  comes 

venire  non  potuit  infirmitate  detentus,  sed  dictos  milites  200  Gavium  delegavit,  100 


Alliance  with  Asti  403 

have  had  to  buy  off  his  grandson-in-law's  possible  hostility  by  a  surrender 
of  territory  at  Barge S  most  unlikely  to  be  voluntary.  He  can  hardly 
have  known  whether  to  rejoice  or  grieve  at  the  misfortunes  of  his 
exacting  ally.  These  indeed  were  heavy.  About  the  middle  of  June 
an  Astigian  force  suffered  a  defeat  from  the  Alessandrians  on  their 
common  frontier  at  Quattordio.  Further  loss  might  have  at  once  been 
inflicted,  had  not  the  Genoese  hastily  sent  reinforcements  from  their 
headquarters  at  Gavi.  Thus  strengthened  the  Astigians  could  commit 
a  month's  ravaging  of  the  Alessandrian  and  especially  the  Albese 
contadi.  But  Genoa  soon  was  forced  to  look  to  herself  on  her  frontier 
by  Tortona,  and  her  vigorous  Podesth  was  dead.  So  into  the  disloyal, 
late  Aleramid  lands  on  the  Belbo,  the  Alessandrians  marched,  sure  of 
meeting  their  foes  single-handed.  The  two  hosts  met  at  Calamandrana 
on  the  7th  of  September,  and  Asti  received  a  staggering  blow.  Eight 
hundred  prisoners  were  taken  to  lie  for  two  and  a  half  years  in  the 
Alessandrian  dungeons  ^ 

viz.  in  exercitu,  et  alios  loo  post  exercitum  ad  custodiam  Gavii  et  aliorum  de  ultra 
jugum  locorum."  It  is  an  obvious  piece  of  exegesis  to  remark  that  the  "damsel" 
is  the  "squire"  of  historical  romances,  and  the  "squires"  are  the  "sergeants."  I 
cannot  discover  in  the  sources  the  indignation  at,  and  disbehef  in,  Thomas's  illness 
among  the  Genoese,  which  Prof.  Gabotto  speaks  of  {V Abazia...di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S. 
'•  i57~8),  nor  his  coolness  in  their  alliance,  nor  his  anxiety  to  break  it  off.  In  fact 
the  treaty  is  merely  a  two-months'  engagement  as  condottiere,  and  a  very  interesting 
and  early  example  on  the  part  of  so  great  a  prince ;  not  an  alliance  at  all  in  the 
proper  sense. 

1  Car.  Reg.  CDLXXXVii.  {Reg.  March.  Sahizzo,  B.S.S.S.  xvi.  p.  353)  and 
CDLXXXVili.  (id.  p.  354).  The  result  was  to  transfer  all  the  Savoyard  dirtct 
suzerainty  in  Barge  to  the  Marquess  (cf.  Car.  Reg.  CMLVli.;  id.  p.  359).  The 
consignori  in  Barge  were  rebels  at  the  time  and  do  not  seem  to  have  submitted 
to  SalUzzo  even  till  1235  (Reg.  March.  Saluzzo,  p.  358).  The  original  does  not 
seem  to  give  Asti  as  the  dating-place.  Hence  we  have  no  evidence  of  Thomas' 
presence  there    in  September. 

^  The  above  account  is  constructed  from  Ogg.  Alfieri,  the  Astigian  (Caps,  i  r 
and  I?,  Cod.  Malah.  p.  59),  and  Barth.  Scrib.  Ann.  Jan.  1225  {M.G.H.  xviii. 
pp.  157-8).  Although  the  latter  is  strictly  contemporary  and  official,  yet  a  too 
conscientious  rigidity  in  refusing  to  chronicle  the  defeats  of  his  city's  allies,  and  a 
haziness  as  to  dates,  make  me  prefer  Oggier,  whose  notes  after  all  are  probably 
copied  from  some  contemporary,  when  he  and  Barth.  Scrib.  differ.  Oggier  places 
the  defeat  at  Quattordio  in  mid  June,  and  that  at  Calamandrana  on  the  7th  Sept. 
Barth.  Scrib.  mentions  no  defeat,  but  states  that  the  Alessandrians  and  Astigians 
encamped  opposite  one  another  by  Calamandrana  in  May,  and  that  then  the  Genoese 
gathered  all  troops  they  could  in  great  haste  and  ravaged  the  Alessandrese  and  then 
the  Albese.  No  battle  was  fought.  Then  their  Podesta  died  well  before  August. 
I  think  Barth.  Scrib.  has  confused  the  two  Astigian  defeats,  and  really  refers  to  that 
of  Quattordio  in  mid  June.  The  Genoese  could  easily  march  across  the  Alessandrese 
contado  without  a  battle,  from  Gavi  to  Asti  afterwards,  since  Quattordio  and  the 
enemies'  army  were  north  of  the  Tanaro,  whereas  Calamandrana  and  the  Belbo  lay 

26—2 


404       Thomas'  later  years  and  decline  in  power 

A  new  character  was  given  to  the  struggle  in  1226,  which  other- 
wise was  desultory  enough  \  by  the  imperial  intervention.  Hitherto 
Frederick,  the  Wonder  of  the  World,  had  played  little  part  in  the 
politics  of  northern  Italy.  All  the  towns  acknowledged  him ;  all  gave 
some  sort  of  obedience  to  his  occasional  commands,  unless  they  con- 
flicted with  their  interests.  But  they  could  see  from  afar  what  manner  of 
man  he  was,  while  he  steadily  reduced  his  patrimonial  kingdom  of  Sicily 
to  a  bureaucratic  despotism  :  no.  could  the  policy  of  a  Hohenstaufen 
Emperor^  who  was  also  King  of  Sicily,  do  less  than  include  the  subjuga- 
tion of  Lombardy  under  a  real  imperial  authority.  Thus  when  Frederick 
summoned  a  general  Diet  in  Cremona  for  Easter  1226  to  further  his 
crusade,  the  suspicions  of  the  cities  revived  in  full  force.  Frederick 
himself  arriving  from  the  south,  the  German  princes  pouring  over  the 
Brenner  might  easily  put  some  check  on  their  autonomy.  A  new 
Lombard  League  was  rapidly  formed  by  Milan  and  her  friends ;  Verona 
blocked  the  outlet  of  the  Brenner,  and  Frederick  was  reduced  to  holding 
a  shorn  assembly.     The  new  League  was  put  to  the  ban  of  the  Empire. 

So  now  the  perennial  feuds  of  the  cities  could  take  again  the  stately 
names  of  liberty  and  loyalty  :  and  among  the  rest  of  the  combatants, 
Count  Thomas  of  Savoy,  with  Asti  and  Genoa,  appears  as  an  imperialist, 
or,  to  use  the  later,  more  intelligible  name,  a  Ghibelline.  They  had 
little  choice  :  for  their  adversaries  were  the  allies  of  the  League  and 
almost  immediately  members  of  it.  None  the  less  it  is  an  important 
change  of  policy  on  the  Count's  part.  Hitherto  he  had  at  best  held 
aloof  from  the  Emperor.  So  late  as  April  we  may  suspect  strained 
relations^.  Now  he  came  to  his  camp  at  Borgo  S.  Donnino  to  take  his 
part  and  do  him  homage.  A  strange  arrangement  was  there  made. 
Frederick  was  of  course  soon  to  return  to  his  southern  kingdom.  As 
his  lieutenant  over  all  Lombardy  from  Treviso  to  Turin  he  appointed 
the  Count   of  Savoy  ^     Not  only  was   the  choice  of  a  non-German 

between  Gavi  and  Asti,  and  they  could  hardly  get  to  Asti  without  meeting  the 
opposing  host.  I  make,  then,  in  the  text  Rarth.  Scriba's  account  follow  the  battle 
of  Quattordio,  and  place  the  defeat  of  Calamandrana  after  the  Genoese  had  returned 
and  were  occupied  round  Gavi.  Earth.  Scrib.  says  that  a  Vercellese  force  was  with 
the  Alessandrians  at  Calamandrana.  I  should  giiess  that  this  fact  should  not  be 
transferred  to  the  lesser  event  of  Quattordio. 

^  See  the  safeguard  to  Carpice  near  Turin,  Car.  Sup.  Lxxvi.  {Carte  del  Pinerolese, 
B.S.S.S.  III.  2,  p.  ■296),  given  by  Amadeus,  son  of  Count  Thomas. 

2  For  Frederick  confirms  the  charters  of  direct  imperial  investiture  to  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Tarentaise  (B.-F.  Reg.  Imp.  No.  1602). 

3  B.-F.  Reg.  Imp.  Nos.  1650  (Borgo  S.  Donnino,  6  July  1226)  and  1651,  in  which 
he  is  styled  "  legatus  totius  Italiae  et  Marcae  Trivixanae."  Romagna  and  Tuscany 
were  not  under  his  jurisdiction.  See  Hellmann,  pp.  107-8.  The  appointment  may 
have  been  made  5  May  (Car.  Keg.  CDXC.)  if  the  diploma  really  does  exist  so  dated  in 
the  Camera  dei  Conti  of  Turin. 


Thomas  Vicar  of  the   Empire  405 

unprecedented,  but  Thomas  was  the  latest  of  the  great  vassals  to  recog- 
nize the  Emperor.  However,  we  can  see  how  Frederick  would  hope  to 
utilize  the  power  and  ability  of  the  restless  Savoyard  for  the  maintenance 
of  the  imperial  cause  and  would  think  that  the  determined  enmity  of 
some  Communes  towards  him  and  the  strength  of  those  that  were  his 
friends  would  prevent  his  becoming  dangerous.  On  his  side  Thomas 
obtained  prestige,  and  opportunity  for  the  further  extension  of  his 
sphere  of  influence. 

So  it  was  arranged,  and  Count  Thomas  duly  attended  his  suzerain 
to  the  borders  of  his  province  at  Pontremoli\  Of  his  general  activity 
as  Legate  only  one  vain  tentative  is  known "^j  but  he  made  a  bold  and 
temporarily  successful  attempt  to  obtain  a  footing  on  the  Riviera  under 
cover  of  it.  This  it  is  which  casts  a  light  on  the  long  endeavour  he  had 
made  to  annex  Saluzzo,  and  makes  clear  the  prophetic  ambitions  which 
possessed  him.  The  opportunity  arose  from  the  longing  felt  by  the 
Communes  of  the  Riviera  di  Ponente  and  of  the  country-nobles  to 
throw  off  the  yoke  of  Genoa.  Savona  and  Albenga  were  the  cities 
concerned.  While  in  general  they  had  been  subject  to  their  powerful 
neighbour  for  some  fifty  years,  their  legal  status  was  most  obscure,  for 
the  Emperors  had  granted  contradictory  diplomas  from  time  to  time  as 
occasion  offered  to  Genoa,  to  the  two  cities,  and  to  the  Aleramid  Henry 
of  Carretto,  Marquess  of  Savona  by  ancient  inheritance.  Frederick  II 
had  recently  confirmed  both  the  Marquess'  and  Genoa's  rights'',  but  the 
former  in  his  enmity  to  Genoa  was  now  urging  on  the  two  subject- 
cities  to  revolt,  and  presumably  it  was  he  who  made  overtures  for  them 
to  Count  Thomas.  The  bait  was  too  tempting  for  the  Legate  to  resist. 
In  the  Emperor's  name  he  proceeded  to  Savona  about  November  1226 
and  took  possession  of  that  town  and  of  Albenga.  He  made  an 
attempt  on  their  neighbour  NoH,  but  the  Genoese  party  there  was  too 
strong  for  his  partizans^     It  may  be  that  the  patient  procedure  of  the 

1  B.-F.  Reg.  Imp.  Nos.  1666,  1667.     (July  1226.) 

-  Car.  Reg.  CDXCi.  =  B.-F.  No.  12959  (Feb.  1227);  a  quite  futile  command  to 
Cremona  to  see  a  debt  paid  to  the  Astigian  Bonino.  Poor  Bonino  was  imploring 
the  papal  Legate's  intervention  on  the  same  matter  in  June  1229  (Ficker,  Ital. 
Urkund.  360). 

^  B.-F.  Reg.  Imp.  Nos.  1651,  1666. 

•»  Barth.  Scrib.  Ann.  Jan.  1226  {M.G.H.  Script,  xviil.  pp.  160-1):  "(Saonenses) 
et  Albinganenses  consilio...Enrici  de  Carreto  marchionis,  qui  malorum  omnium  pre- 
dictorum  extitit  fons  et  auctor,  comiti  Thome  de  Sabaudia,  qui  per...imperatorem 
legatus  fuerat  in  Ytalia  constitutus,  monies  et  maria  promittentes,  se  et  sua  suppo- 
suerunt  eidem,  sibi  dantes  obsides  et  omnia  quecumque  ab  eis  petere  voluit  et  habere; 
...firmiter  asserentes  quod  tocius  Riperie  sibi  dominium  et  tenutam,  et  quod  in  Saona 
cabellam  salis  construerent,  cujus  introitum  sibi  darent.  Quare.. .comes  eorum  pro- 
missionibus  et  inductionibus  improvide  condescendens,  ad  ipsorum  partes  accessit,  et 
eos  in  sua  protectione   suscepit.     Saonenses  vero  sibi  primitus  juraverunt,      ostea 


4o6       Thomas'  later  years  and  decline  in  power 

suzerain-commune,  which  had  shown  a  marked  reluctance  to  take 
military  action  as  was  natural  under  the  stress  of  her  Piedmontese  war, 
had  encouraged  the  Count  to  intervene.  Even  now,  when  peaceful 
overtures  had  been  of  no  avail,  Genoa  contented  herself  with  sending 
a  small  fleet  to  blockade  the  ports  of  the  two  rebels,  and  to  divert 
the  salt-trade,  which  formed  their  land-commerce,  at  Ventimiglia  and 
Monaco.  Thomas  himself  soon  departed  for  the  Val  di  Susa,  leaving 
his  heir  Amadeus  to  cope  with  the  war,  attended  by  a  number  of 
Savoyard  knights  ^  He  had  probably  hoped  that  the  Piedmontese  war 
would  keep  Genoa  busily  engaged.  But,  if  so,  his  expectations  were 
falsified.  Truces  were  already  in  being  by  January  1227,  and  arrange- 
ments were  made  for  Milan  to  arbitrate  in  May^.  So  in  spite  of  floods 
and  stormy  weather  the  Genoese  Podesta  and  host  marched  out  against 
the  rebels  towards  the  end  of  April.  On  the  5th  of  May  Savona's 
dependency  of  Albissola  surrendered ;  and  at  last  on  the  19th,  struggling 
over  the  drenched  country-side,  the  Genoese  reached  Savona  itself  and 
put  to  flight  Amadeus  and  his  troops  outside  the  walls.  There  was 
nothing  left  for  the  rebels  but  to  surrender,  which  they  did  on  the  24th. 
That  evening  Amadeus  and  his  men  quitted  the  town,  and  spurred  all 
night  across  the  Alps  towards  friendly  Saluzzo.  They  were  not  over- 
taken by  their  enemies,  who  were  busy  receiving  the  submission  of 
Henry  of  Carretto  and  Albenga  and  in  razing  Savona's  walls  to  the 
ground.  The  adventure  was  over ;  and  Thomas'  dream  of  a  maritime 
state  had  to  wait  for  its  accomplishment  till  the  days  of  his  grand- 
daughter's husband,  Charles  of  Anjou,  of  whom  he  was  perhaps  more 
nearly  than  any  other  contemporary  the  precursor ^ 

Even  in  his  Ligurian  scheme  Thomas  had  not  been  unmindful  of 

homines  Albingane.  Consequenter  ad  locum  Nauli  accessit,  et  al^  hominibus  ipsius 
loci  sacramentum  consimile  postulavit ;  qui  sibi  responderunt  quod  nee  sibi  nee  alieui 
promissionem  facerent,  nisi  secundum  quod  ipsis  civitas  Janue  ordinaret."  Evidently 
Thomas  was  seeking  real  dominion.  I  understand  the  scribe's  official  joke,  "  monies 
et  maria,"  to  refer  to  Thomas'  ambitions  of  overstepping  the  Apennines  and  becoming 
a  sea-power  with  a  port. 

^  One  document  (5  May  1227)  belongs  to  his  vicariate,  Car.  Reg.  Dii. 

^  See  the  documents,  Ferretto,  Documenti  iniorno  alle  relazioiii fra  Alba  e  Genova, 
B.S.S.S.  XXII.  pp.  27,  28,  33. 

^  On  the  legal  tangle  with  regard  to  the  position  of  Savona  and  Albenga,  cf. 
Hellmann,  pp.  1 12-13.  The  war  is  described  by  Barth.  Scrib.  {M.H.G.  Script,  xviii. 
pp.  163-4),  from  which  I  extract  a  passage  or  two:  "  Cum  autem  .Saonenses,  comes 
Sabaudie,  et  Alabroges,  et  homines  Albingane  qui  convenerant  ad  deffensionem 
Saone,  se  tueri  non  possent,  se  sine  tenore  et  pacto  aliquo  reddiderunt....Amedeus 
vero  comes  Sabaudie,  comitis  Thome  de  Sabaudia  filius,  et  Alabroges  qui  secum 
erant,  et  homines  Albingane,  de  personis  propriis  formidantes,  timore  perterriti  in 
sero  fugam  arripuerunt  et  per  totam  noctem  fugare  non  cessarunt  et  cum  dedecore 
recesserunt." 


Fresh   Burgundian  schemes  407 

the  income  to  be  derived  from  the  two  seaports,  which  might  supply  a 
much  needed  subsidy  for  his  war  with  Turin  ;  since  rich  as  he  was  in 
men,  he  was  poor  in  hard  cash.  Similar  mixed  motives,  financial  need 
and  the  desire  to  injure  his  enemy  of  Genoa,  must  have  led  to  a 
singular  stretch  of  his  powers  which  he  indulged  in  while  he  was  at 
Albenga  on  the  8th  of  November  1226^  The  great  Provencal  seaport 
of  Marseilles  was  then  in  the  throes  of  a  struggle  with  her  Bishop, 
resembling  those  which  the  Italian  Communes  had  so  often  engaged  in 
during  the  previous  century.  He  was  rightful  lord  of  the  upper  town, 
and  the  citizens  had  put  his  authority  aside  in  their  determination  to 
rule  in  their  own  house.  But  the  neighbouring  powers  and  the  Emperor 
were  all  on  the  Bishop's  side.  FeudaHsm  was  not  decrepit  in  Burgundy; 
and  the  Emperor,  King  of  Sicily  and  Jerusalem  as  he  was,  could  half 
ruin  their  trade.  He  was  obstinate  in  his  hostility  and  placed  the  city's 
envoys  in  irons,  when  they  attempted  to  bargain  with  him.  It  was 
then  that  Marseilles  turned  to  Count  Thomas  for  aid  and  found  him 
astutely  gracious.  For  the  sum  of  2000  silver  marks,  paid  on  success, 
and  expenses,  he  agreed  to  make  the  city  another  Genoa.  She  should 
be  autonomous,  she  should  rule  the  diocese  and  all  the  coast  with  its 
islands  from  Aiguesmortes  to  Olioules.  She  was  to  have  every  privilege 
of  the  Genoese  or  Pisans  in  Sicily  and  the  Levant.  Could  any  honest 
broker  have  sold  a  Commune  its  heart's  wishes  more  cheaply  ?  Only, 
they  were  not  his  to  sell.  The  Emperor  refused  to  concede  the  diploma 
bargained  for,  and  in  1227  Marseilles  was  already  suing  for  its  Bishop's 
grace,  with  the  result  of  a  final  peace  in  1230^. 

In  one  other  way  Count  Thomas  was  furthering  his  interests  in 
southern  Burgundy  at  this  time.  By  his  marriage  with  Margaret  of 
the  Genevois  he  was  father  of  eight  stalwart  sons ;  and  he  had  early 
taken  the  resolution  of  providing  for  the  five  younger  by  devoting  them 
to  a  clerical  career.  They  all  entered  minor  orders.  There,  however, 
the  compliance  of  all  but  one,  and  perhaps  their  father's   intention, 

^  The  text  in  Guichenon  [Preuves,  p.  34)  has  Albdiga,  but  it  has  long  been 
recognized  (cf.  especially  Ilellmann,  p.  115,  n.  3)  that  Albenga  must  be  the  place 
meant.  Henry  of  Carretto  and  his  son-in-law,  Grattapaglia,  are  present ;  and  the 
war  with  Genoa  would  prevent  them  from  leaving  the  Riviera. 

"^  Cf.  Fournier,  Le  Royaume  d' Aries,  pp.  117  if.,  and  Hellmann,  pp.  1 14-16. 
Here,  as  in  the  case  of  Savona  etc.,  I  omit  the  earlier  history  which  really  has  nothing 
to  do  with  Count  Thomas,  just  as  the  later  developments  have  not.  The  document 
is  Car.  Reg.  CDXciv.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  54):  "  promitto...si...Imperator  commi- 
serit  mihi  partes  suas  in  sopienda  discordia  ipsius  Imperatoris  et  communis  Massiliae 
...quod  dabo  et  concedo  etc."  The  Count  is  to  send  special  messengers  to  the 
Emperor  about  it.  As  usual,  it  is  necessary  to  beware  of  Carutti's  abstract.  The 
Count  makes  no  grant,  but  promises  a  definite  kind  of  grant,  if  he  has  the  faculty 
to  make  it. 


4o8       Thomas'  later  years  and  decline  in  power 

stopped.  They  were  secular  to  the  core,  brave  knights  and  prudent 
statesmen.  Two  of  them  renounced  the  ecclesiastical  career  early  ; 
two  more  preferred  to  remain,  like  so  many  other  princes  of  the  Church 
in  their  day,  apart  from  the  more  sacred  functions  of  their  profession. 
The  eldest  of  these  amphibians  was  William,  fourth  son  of  the  Count, 
and  one  of  the  ablest  of  the  family.  Now  in  the  year  1225  the  Bur- 
gundian  see  of  Valence  was  vacant  through  the  promotion  of  its  last 
holder  to  the  Patriarchate  of  Jerusalem.  The  Pope  and  perhaps  the 
Emperor  were  willing  to  gratify  Count  Thomas,  and  the  vacant  Bishopric 
was  bestowed  on  young  William.  He  never  was  consecrated,  but  ruled 
his  see  as  "Procurator"  with  zeal  and  wisdom ^  It  was  a  new  exten- 
sion of  the  Savoyard  sphere  of  influence,  for  the  Dauphine  lay  between 
the  Bishopric  of  Valence  and  Savoy. 

As  such  it  is  likely  to  have  produced  fresh  troubles  for  the  Count. 
The  year  1227  had  closed  in  Piedmont  with  every  sign  of  a  coming 
storm,  and  there  seems  to  have  been  a  confused  series  of  negotiations 
before  the  composition  of  the  opposing  parties  was  definitely  decided. 
Frederick  II,  although  he  had  approved  his  Legate's  proceedings  on 
the  Riviera^,  had  withdrawn  his  office  from  him  on  their  failure,  not 
being  willing  to  incur  a  useless  breach  with  Genoa,  or  pleased  with  the 
afikir  of  Marseilles.  Then  in  September  the  Emperor  fell  under  the 
Papal  ban  for  not  keeping  his  crusading  vow,  and  for  the  next  year  and 
a  half  was  to  be  mainly  occupied  with  Palestinian  matters.  A  prudent 
man  like  Thomas  must  have  felt  the  risk  of  being  one  of  the  supporters 
of  an  absentee,  crusading,  excommunicated  Emperor,  especially  when 
he  remembered  that  the  Papacy  had  always  won  the  victory  in  these 
conflicts,  and  that  the  Pope,  now  the  unbending  Gregory  IX,  had 
forced  on  the  quarrel  in  time  to  prevent  Frederick's  further  inter- 
vention in  Lombardy.  So  now  we  find  Thomas  creating  another 
precedent  in  the  House  of  Savoy.  As  he  was  the  first  Savoyard  to 
become  the  vassal  of  a  city,  and  a  condottiere,  so  he  was  the  first  to 
surrender  an  alod  to  a  foreign  prince  to  receive  it  again  in  fief.  About 
April  he  became  the  Pope's  vassal  for  Avigliana  at  the  mouth  of  the 
Val  di  Susa^     It  was  a  kind  of  insurance;  Papalist  enemies  could  not 

1  William  first  appears  as  "Minister"  of  the  Bishopric  of  Valence  on  15  March 
1226,  which  I  take  to  be  1227  of  our  reckoning.  In  June  he  made  a  successful  peace 
with  some  local  nobles  (Car.  Sup.  Lxxviii.).  The  Pope  appointed  to  a  see  vacated 
by  translation.  Cf.  J.  Chevalier,  Quarante  amines  de  Vhisioire  des  £veques  de  Valence, 
pp.  4-5.  His  brother  Thomas  is  already  Provost  of  Valence  on  2  May  1227,  no 
doubt  by  his  appointment  (Car.  Reg.  Dili.).  That  William  was  elected  Bishop  some 
time  in  1225  is  shown  in  the  entries  of  30  Dec.  1225  and  2  Jan.  1226  in  the  Patent 
Rolls,  Henry  III,  1225 — 32,  pp.  8  and  9. 

^  B.-F.  Reg.  Imp.  No.  1697.  Thomas  does  not  bear  the  title  of  Legate  after 
May  1227.  ^  B.-F.  Reg.  Imp.  No.  6723. 


War  renewed  in   Piedmont  409 

now  consistently  attack  the  valley  at  all  events.     Probably  it  had  no 
effect,  and  the  homage  was  certainly  not  repeated. 

Meanwhile,  however,  Thomas  had  been  forming  a  quite  different 
secular  alliance  with  his  feudal  neighbours  in  Piedmont.  On  the  i8th 
January  1228  he  held  conference  with  Manfred  III  of  Saluzzo,  the 
Count  of  Biandrate  and  the  new  young  Marquess  of  Montferrat,  Boni- 
face II.  The  last-named  was  betrothed  to  Thomas'  other  grand- 
daughter, Margaret,  daughter  of  his  son  Amadeus.  The  fiancee's 
dowry  took  the  form  of  a  fief  to  Boniface  II;  it  consisted  of  the  Count's 
rights  in  the  Val  di  Stura  di  Ala,  Collegno  and  Pianezza,  and  shows 
that  Thomas  had  made  some  conquests  in  his  war  with  Turin,  and  also 
that  he  was  doubtful  of  keeping  them.  However,  he  could  buy  back 
Collegno  by  the  treaty  ^ 

Such  were  the  preliminaries.  Meantime  a  period  of  active  war  was 
drawing  nearer.  The  sentence  of  the  Milanese  in  their  arbitration 
between  Genoa  and  her  foes  had  pleased  neither  party,  and  was 
promptly  broken  by  the  Alessandrians'-^.  The  war  between  Thomas 
and  Turin,  of  course,  had  never  ceased,  and  by  August  the  two  sides  of 
a  conflict  which  involved  almost  all  Piedmont  were  formed.  For  one 
league  Asti  provided  the  connecting  link  :  with  her  stood  Genoa,  the 
Marquesses  of  Montferrat  and  Saluzzo  and  their  kin,  Chieri  and  the 
Count  of  Savoy^  The  other  consisted  of  the  western  members  of 
the  Lombard  League,  Alessandria,  Alba,  and  Turin.  With  the  latter 
were  ranked  her  dependencies  of  Pinerolo,  Testona  and  the  Piossasco, 
Bagnolo  and  Barge.  Further,  Turin  had  acquired  a  new  and  formidable 
ally,  Guigues-Andrew  the  Dauphin.  That  Burgundian  prince  seems  at 
last  to  have  been  irritated  by  Thomas'  method  of  aggressio|i  on  all  sides 
to  attack  him,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  his  daughter,  now  perhaps  dead, 
was  the  wife  of  the  Count's  heir  Amadeus.  The  last  straw  was  probably 
the  promotion  of  William  of  Savoy  to  the  Bishopric  of  Valence.  It 
was  a  strictly  limited  hostility,  however,  that  the  Dauphin  stood  com- 
mitted by  the  treaty  of  the  13th  of  July  1228.  In  true  Italian  style  he 
became  a  citizen  of  Turin,  and,  whereas  the  opposing  league  were 
trying  to  force  commerce  to  take  their  route  via  Carignano  and  Susa, 

^  Car. /^eg:  DXl.  (Datta,  Frinapi  d'Jcaia,  ll.  Doc.  IV.):  "  Thomas. ..dat.. .nomine 
gentilis  feudi  et... nomine  dotalicii  investivit...Bonifacium...de  omni  eo  quod  ipse  habet 
...in  valle  Mathiis...et  insimul  Collegium  et  I'laneciam." 

-  See  the  documents  in  Ferretto,  Doc. ...Alba  e  Geiiova,  B.S.S.S.  xxiii.  pp.  37,  47, 
50>  55)  58  and  60. 

3  The  league  of  Montferrat,  Asti  and  Genoa  against  Alessandria  is  dated  8  August 
1228  (Ferretto,  op.  cit.,  p.  62).  The  adhesion  of  Saluzzo  and  the  other  Aleramids 
against  Alessandria  and  Alba  is  dated  21  Nov.  1228  {Reg.  March.  Saluzzo,  B.S.S.S. 
XVI.  No.  301;  Sella,  Codex. ..de  Malabayla,  No.  261).  The  war  of  Asti,  Chieri  and 
Savoy  against  Turin  had  never  ceased  apparently. 


4IO       Thomas'  later  years  and  decline  in  power 

the  Dauphin  agreed  to  insist  on  another  zigzag  transit  through  Turin, 
Testona  and  Pinerolo  to  the  Mont  Genevre.  The  neutral  merchant 
must  have  bewailed  his  lot  as  he  lost  time  and  paid  unnecessary  innings 
on  this  new  circular  tour.  Against  the  Count  of  Savoy  the  Dauphin 
was  to  wage  war  with  all  his  power ;  he  was  not  to  contract  any  engage- 
ments either  with  Thomas  or  the  Count  of  Provence ;  he  was  to  send 
a  small  subsidiary  force  into  Lombardy  to  act  against  the  Astigians'. 

The  hostilities  which  took  place  in  the  autumn  and  winter  of  1228 
resulted  in  favour  of  the  "  imperialists."  To  Alba,  then  hard-pressed 
by  Asti,  was  sent  a  reinforcement  of  the  Alessandrian  "  knights." 
Thereupon  the  Astigians  and  Boniface  of  Montferrat  threw  themselves 
between  the  reheving  force  and  its  native  city  at  S.  Stefano-Belbo. 
There  they  were  met  by  a  Genoese  army,  and  the  unlucky  Alessandrians 
had  no  choice  but  to  ride  full  speed  to  Turin  to  escape  their  foes.  But 
the  allies  held  the  inner  line  of  communication.  In  their  turn  they 
struck  straight  north  to  Chivasso  on  the  Po  :  and  it  is  hard  to  see  how 
the  Alessandrians  could  have  got  home  had  not  their  free  passage  been 
begged  of  the  enemy  by  the  Milanese,  with  whom  Asti  and  her  friends 
were  anxious  not  to  break.  One  effect  of  this  campaign  was  that  on 
the  7th  of  February  1229  the  Counts  of  Biandrate  thought  it  best  to 

^  Car.  Reg.  DXV.  (Cartario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  II.  p.  123):  "  Dalfinus  etc. 
debeant  prohibere  semper  Januensibus,  Astensibus  atque  Cariensibus  at  omniVjus... 
inimicis  Taurinensium...ne  faciant  transitum...per  totam  terram  suam...nisi  fecerint 
transitum  per  civitatem  Taurinensem  et  per  locum  Pinairolii  et  Testone  et  tunc... 
€piscopus  Taurinensis  possit  capere  in  Testona  pedagium  quod  apud  Muntexolum 
capere  consuevit.... Strata  incedens  per  Pinairolium  eat  postea  per  terram... Dalfini 
dum  discordia  fuerit  in  Lombardia,  donee  strate  Lombardie  redigantur  in  pristinam 
formam.... Dalfinus... totis  viribus...erit...cum  comuni  civitatis  Taurini...pro  pace  et 

treuga  ac  guerra  facienda  de  terra  sua  ultra  montes...et  specialiter  comiti  Sabaudie 

^Dalfinus)  nuUam  faciet  societatem...vel  aliud  amicicie  vinculum  ..cum  comite  Sabaudie 
...nee  cum  comite  de  Provincia."  It  points  to  the  partial  and  local  character  of  these 
combined  feuds  that  the  Dauphin  reserves  his  alliance  with  Montferrat ;  and  Testona 
her  alliance  with  Asti,  vi'hich  was  seemingly  in  a  shaky  condition — "  possint  defendere 
Astenses  si  voluerint."  The  Dauphin  was  veiy  likely  already  at  war  with  Thomas, 
for,  as  shown  by  Car.  Reg.  Di.  {Carte... d'Oulx,  B.S.S.S.  XLV.  p.  282),  i.e.  27  Feb. 
1228  (correct  Carutti),  Aymon  of  Savoy,  Thomas'  second  surviving  son,  had  early  in 
1228  already  captured  the  Dauphin's  Marshal  and  held  him  to  ransom  (cf.  also  Car. 
Reg.  Dxvi.  and  DXVii. ;  Carte... d''Oulx,  pp.  291  and  285).  This  may,  however, 
have  been  merely  an  event  of  a  private  feud,  since  the  Marshal,  who  was  also  a  vassal 
of  Savoy  (Car.  Reg.  cdlxxii.),  was  later  compensated  by  Amadeus  IV  (Car.  Sup. 
LXXXIX. ;  Cartario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  I.  p.  150).  Almost  immediately  after  his 
capture  on  the  9th  and  19th  March  1228,  Aymon  appears  at  Ivrea  witnessing  the 
homage  of  Boniface  of  Montferrat  to  the  Bishop  [Carte... vescov.  d'lvrea,  B.S.S.S. 
V.  pp.  163  and  166;  the  year  is  reckoned  from  25  March;  thus  1227  appears  on 
p.  163).  Ivrea  was  at  war  with  Vercelli  and  the  Viscount  of  Aosta,  not  to  mention 
her  wars  in  the  Canavese,  and  took  no  part  in  the  general  war  (Carte. ..vesc.  d'/vrea, 
p.  340,  Doc.  Fercell.  rel.  ad  Ivrea,  B.S.S.S.  vili.  p.  160). 


Continuance  of  the  Piedmontese  war  411 

make  peace  and  alliance  with  Chieri^  But  the  very  success  of  the 
sturdy  little  Commune  won  new  allies  for  her  foes.  On  the  24th  of 
January  1229  the  Marquesses  of  Romagnano  joined  the  Turinese 
league,  which  had  also  received  the  adhesion  of  Cirie  at  the  mouth  of 
the  Val  di  Stura  di  Ala,  which  was  in  revolt  from  Montferrat.  While 
the  Marquesses  refused  to  break  their  fealty  to  Count  Thomas  or 
Montferrat  unless  they  were  first  attacked,  they  expressly  declared 
against  Asti  and  Chieri^.  Not  much  fortune,  however,  did  they  bring 
their  allies.  Count  Thomas,  doubtless  by  arrangement  with  Asti,  at 
last  made  his  cherished  foundation  of  a  new  town  in  Piedmont,  almost 
on  the  site  of  the  earlier  Musinasco.  The  town,  which  would  supply 
the  place  of  Carignano  for  the  Astigian  trade,  was  named  Villafranca ; 
and  rapidly  acquired  prosperity.  As  usual  the  local  lords  were  left 
their  dues  and  became,  much  to  Thomas'  detriment  as  it  turned  out, 
the  leading  townsmen  of  the  Commune^.  While  Thomas  built  a  new 
town,  Asti  and  Chieri  destroyed  an  old  one.  In  their  campaign  they 
forced  their  way  into  Testona  and  set  fire  to  the  town.  Most  of  the 
inhabitants  seem  to  have  escaped,  but  they  would  or  could  not  return 
again  to  their  ruined  habitations  ^ 

^  Cibrario,  Delle  storie  di  Chieri,  I.  112,  II.  89.  The  campaign  or  part  of  it  is 
told  by  Barth.  Scrib.  Ann.  Jan.  1228  (M.G.H.  Script,  xviii.  171). 

^  Cartario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  II.  p.  133.  Gualfred  di  Scalenghe,  probably  a 
relative  of  the  Piossasco,  who  held  land  in  Scalenghe,  is  also  an  ally.  The  chief 
Savoyard  clauses  are  :  "  Salvo  quod  hominibus  de  Vigono  et  de  Miradolio  et  de 
Avillania  et  comitis  et  aliis  hominibus  suis  qui  sunt  ab  Avillania  superius  ad  volun- 
tatem  ipsorum  marchionum  (marchaandiam)  possint  aperire  et  permittere  nee  eis 
vetare  teneantur...marchiones  nisi  voluerint....Item  teneantur  facere  guerram... contra 
homines  de  Carlo  et  de  Ast — Item  quocumque  modo  comes  Sabaudie  guerram  inciperet 
...marchionibus...marchiones...ponerent  homines  eorum...in  guerram  cum  comite... 
Marchiones...pacem  non  facient  de  ilia  guerra  nee  treugas  etc.  nee  de  futuris  guerris 
•cum  predicto  comite... sine  licencia  Taurinensium  omnium  et  Testonensium  et  Pinairo- 
lensium." 

^  G.  della  Chiesa,  Cron.  di  Saluzzo  (M.H.P.  Script,  iii.  898) :  "  Quelo  anno 
(1228)  Tartona  {sic)  fu  distrutta  per  quely  dy  la  citta  d'Asty  et  quely  de  Chiery.  Et 
in  quely  giorny  el  conte  Thomas  dy  Savoya  edifico  Villafrancha."  The  late  Chron. 
Parv.  Ripaltae  gives  the  wrong  date,  1239,  for  Villafranca's  foundation,  perhaps  owing 
to  some  reacquisition  then  by  Savoy.  That  Chiesa  is  right  is  shown  by  Villafranca's 
appearance  in  the  peace  of  1235  (Car.  Reg.  DLX. ;  Cartario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  11. 
p.  151).  The  fact  that  it  is  then  an  enemy  of  Savoy  has  made  Prof.  Gabotto  cast 
■doubts  {B.S.S.S.  I.  p.  168)  on  Thomas'  share  in  its  foundation.  But  the  constant 
references  to  Thomas'  wish  to  found  a  town  in  that  direction,  the  obvious  motive 
when  the  Romagnano  half-lords  of  Carignano  joined  Turin,  and  the  very  form  of  the 
name  Villafranca,  so  unlikely  for  a  purely  Italian  foundation,  all  confirm  the  unvarying 
tradition. 

■•  Chron.  Parv.  Ripalt.  (RR.  If.  SS.,  new  ed.,  p.  7)  :  "A.  1229  destructa  fuit 
Testona  ab  Astensibus."  Particulars  of  the  damage  done  to  the  church  are  given 
in  Ansaldi,  Cartario  di  Testona,  B.S..S.S.  XLiii.  3,  p.  118. 


412       Thomas'  later  years  and  decline  in  power 

The  destruction  of  Testona  brought  about  that  very  intervention  of 
Milan  and  the  whole  Lombard  League  that  Asti  had  been  anxious  to 
avoid  the  year  before  ^  At  the  call  of  the  Alessandrlans,  the  con- 
tingents of  the  League  gathered  at  Vercelli  in  the  middle  of  May  1230 
and  thence  marched  into  Alessandrian  contado.  The  lands  of  the 
Marquess  of  Montferrat  lay  in  a  semi-circle  round  the  Astigian  country 
proper,  both  north  and  south  of  the  Tanaro,  and  the  object  of  the 
League  was  first  to  pierce  this  curtain  and  force  the  Marquess  to  yield 
and  then  to  wreak  a  vengeance  on  Asti  herself,  whom  they  hardly 
hoped  to  conquer.  Up  they  marched  along  the  Belbo,  burning  and 
devastating,  and  then  on  the  24th  of  May  began  the  siege  of  the 
Marquess'  castle  of  Mombaruzzo.  They  soon  saw  they  were  not  strong 
enough  to  effect  the  wholesale  destruction  they  wished,  and  called  up 
reinforcements  from  their  cities.  When  these  arrived  on  the  21st  of 
June,  the  Marquess  dared  resist  no  more.  He  gave  up  the  struggle 
and  entered  the  League.  Asti's  contado  now  lay  open,  and  the  allies 
swept  over  the  open  country  almost  to  the  walls  of  the  city,  from  which 
the  helpless  Astigians  could  see  village  and  farm,  field  and  vineyard 
black  and  ruined  after  their  passage.  Thence  with  great  glory,  says 
their  chronicler,  they  returned  to  their  own^. 

But  this  was  not  the  only  or  the  worst  harm  the  Astigians  suffered. 
The  ci-devant  townsmen  of  the  Cuneo  had  never  forgotten  the  joys  of 
their  short-lived  Commune ;  nor  was  the  predominance  of  Asti  and  her 
allied  Marquesses  any  less  irksome  than  formerly  to  the  small  south- 
western towns.  Now  with  the  Marquess  of  Montferrat  subdued  and 
Asti  cowed,  and  Genoa  making  peace  with  Alessandria,  they  seized 
their  opportunity.  In  August''  there  was  a  general  rising  of  the  small 
nobles  and  their  friends  along  the  Stura  di  Demonte  to  the  Col  Argen- 
tera,  Savigliano  and  Borgo  S.  Dalmazzo  leading  the  movement.  The 
insurgents  gathered  at  Cuneo  and  rebuilt  the  walls.  They  knew, 
however,  that  they  could  never  hold  out  against  an  immediate  attack 
from  Manfred  III  of  Saluzzo  and  his  allies  of  Savoy  and  Montferrat, 
and  they  appealed  for  aid  to  Milan.  Their  request  for  aid  was  granted 
and  a  force  of  volunteer  "  knights "  of  Milan  rode  to  their  aid.  In 
spite  of  some  losses  in  a  skirmish  with  Boniface  of  Montferrat,  who  at 
once  broke  with  the  League  on  the  news  of  this  new  action  of  theirs, 

^  According  to  Schiavina,  Ann.  Alex.  {M.H.P.  Script,  iv.  209),  the  Milanese  and 
Alexandrians  defeated  Asti  and  Montferrat  on  6  May  1229. 

'^  Codagnelli,  Ann.  Plac.  Guelf.  pp.  99  ff . :  "  Alexandrini...volentes  nequitie... 
Astensium  et  marchionis  de  Monteferato  et  comitis  de  Sabogia  et  aliis  eorum  inimicis 
resistere  etc." 

*  Reg.  March.  Saluzzo,  B.S.S..S.  xvi.  No.  312,  shows  the  Val  di  Stura  in  revolt 
then.  For  further  demonstration  of  the  date  (autumn  1230,  not  spring  1231)  see 
Merkel,  Un  Quarto  di  Secolo  di  Vita  comunale,  pp.  5-8. 


Continuance  of  the  Piedmontese  war  413 

among  his  vassals  be  it  remembered,  the  Milanese  reached  Cuneo  and 
began  active  operations  against  the  foe.  But  in  one  warlike  excursion 
they  fell  in  with  the  redoubtable  Thomas  of  Savoy  and  the  two  Mar- 
quesses of  Montferrat  and  Saluzzo  together.  An  ambush  was  laid  by 
the  crafty  foe  into  which  the  Milanese  were  drawn.  Their  troop  was 
utterly  defeated  and  their  commander,  Oberto  di  Ozeno,  captured  and 
then  put  to  death  after  the  battle'. 

It  was  a  considerable  triumph  for  Thomas.  Yet  Cuneo  was  now 
-well  started  on  her  renewed  existence,  and  next  year  the  Marquess  of 
Montferrat,  deserted  by  his  allies,  lost  his  chief  town,  Chivasso,  to  the 
League-.  At  the  same  time  signs  of  peace  were  being  manifested  by 
the  wearied  Communes.  For  one  thing  the  Emperor  was  now  recon- 
ciled with  Pope  Gregory  and  preparing  to  intervene  in  Lombardy. 
Alessandria  had  seemingly  suffered  losses  in  her  further  war  with  Asti. 
Asti  had  found  that  Testona's  destruction  had  brought  her  little  profit, 
for,  besides  the  devastation  she  had  endured,  Testona  had  rearisen 
from  her  ashes  under  Milanese  auspices  on  the  neighbouring  site  of 
Moncalieri,  and  was  just  as  favourably  placed  for  commerce  as  before^ 
Carignano  was  hostile,  and  the  new  town  of  Villafranca  had  incon- 
tinently joined  Turin.  So  about  December  1231  we  find  Asti  making 
peace  with  AlessandriaS  and  in  July  1232  with  Turin.  In  the  same 
year  Manfred  III,  who  had  reconquered  his  vassals  on  the  countryside, 
was  arranging  a  truce  with  Cuneo  and  the  other  small  Communes  ^ 
Only  two  considerable  powers  were  left  at  war,  Chieri  and  Thomas  of 
Savoy.  Against  the  former  Asti  had  promised  Turin  to  proceed  by 
force  of  arms;  the  latter  she  was  only  allowed  to  assist  if  he  should 
accept  her  interpretation  of  a  treaty  he  had  negotiated,  perhaps  that  of 
1223,  with  Turin''. 

^  Codagnelli,  Ann.  Plac.  Guelf.  pp.  102-4  =  "  Cum  loci  Saveliane,  Burgi  S.  Dal- 
matii,  Pizi  de  Cuneo  et  quorundam  aliorum  locorum  viri...oppressiones...quas  comes 
de  Sabogia  et  Marchio  de  Monteferato,  marchio  de  Salucio  etc.  inferebant...muni- 
tionem  in  (Pizo  de  Cunio)  facere  statuerunt  etc." 

^  Codagnelli,  pp.  104-9. 

3  Chron.  Parv.  Ripaltae  {RR.  II.  SS.,  new  ed.,  p.  7):  "  Anno  sequent!  (i.e.  1230) 
aedificatus  est  Montiscalerius  a  Mediolanensibus."  The  new  commune  appears  in 
the  treaty  of  July  1232  (Car.  Re^.  Dxxxiv.). 

■*  Sella,  Codex... de  Malabay la.  No.  985. 

*  Reg.  March.  Saluzzo,  B.S.S.S.  xvi.  No.  321.  Cf.  on  Cuneese  history,  Bertano, 
cp.  cit.  pp.  138  ff. 

8  Car.  Reg.  dxxxiv.  {Cartario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  II.  p.  141) :  Asti  is  to  assist 
Turin  etc.  "contra  omnes  homines  etc.  nullo  homine  excepto  nisi  solummodo  comite 
Sabaudie,  si  ille  comes  voluerit  se  ponere  et  stare  in  dictis  communis  Astensis  de  dis- 
cordiis  que  erant  inter  ipsum  comitem  et  ecclesiam  et  comune  et  homines  Taurini,  de 
pace  que  traclabatur  inter  eos  per  castellanum  Avillanie  etc.;  et  tunc  solummodo 
comune   Astense   possit  juvare   comitem   predictum.. .solummodo. ..in    sua   terra   ad 


414       Thomas'  later  years  and  decline  in  power 

Thomas,  however,  would  not  abandon  the  struggle,  although  at  this 
very  time  his  acquisitions  in  the  Vallais  had  involved  him  in  another 
war  with  Bishop  Landric  of  Sion.  The  conduct  of  that  he  left  to  his 
son  Aymon\  He  himself,  after  obtaining  the  town  of  Chambery,  later 
to  be  the  Savoyard  capital,  from  its  Viscount,  and  granting  it  the  now 
typical  franchises,  crossed  the  Alps  to  Italy.  The  winter  of  1232-3 
was  of  unprecedented  severity  in  his  Burgundian  counties.  Everywhere 
the  nut-trees  and  vines  perished  and  a  dearth  followed".  None  the  less 
early  in  1233  he  renewed  the  war  in  Piedmont.  Perhaps  we  may  take 
it  that  he  attempted  to  lay  siege  to,  or  at  least  cut  off  the  trade  of^ 
Moncalieri'*.  There  he  seems  to  have  died  in  camp  on  the  first  of 
March^  He  cannot  have  been  more  than  forty-six  years  old,  but  he 
had  ruled  for  over  thirty,  and  so  crowded  is  his  life  with  events  and  the 
busy  turmoil  of  war  and  peace  that  it  is  hard  to  realize  that  he  did  not 
reach  old  age. 

Section  IV.    Epilogue,  Thomas'  family. 

The  war  with  Turin  languished  after  Thomas'  death.  His  heir 
Amadeus  IV,  a  quiet,  dutiful  man  one  would  think,  at  odds  with  his 
ambitious  brothers,  and  without  staunch  allies,  had  little  time  to  give  to 
it.  Doubtless  it  was  this  fact,  along  with  the  custom  of  granting 
appanages  to  the  junior  members  of  the  family,  which  made  him  on  the 

defensionem  sue  terre.  Quod  si  comes  nollet  se  ponere  ut  supra  comune  Astense 
non  teneatur  nee  debeat  ipsuni  adjuvare  contra  Taurinenses. ...Ecclesia  et  comune- 
et  homines  Taurini  teneantur  dare  totam  stratam  grossam  consuetam  ire  per  pontem 
Padi  Taurini  quam  poterint  comuni  Astensi  dummodo  facial  capud  in  civitate  Taurini 
et  per  earn  partem  ubi  placuerit  hominibus  de  Ast  a  Taurine  citra  etc." 

'  On  15  Jan.  1231  Thomas  obtained  ihe  rest  of  the  barony  of  Saillon  (see  above, 
p.  399)  by  exchange  (Car.  Reg.  Dxxviii.  M.D.R.,  xxix.  294  ;  and  Car.  Keg.  Dxxvi. 
M.D.R.  XXIX.  296:  only  the  latter  is  fully  dated,  but  Dxxviii.  precedes  it  in  time 
and  has  the  same  day  of  the  month).  Aymon  of  Savoy  makes  peace  with  the  Bishop, 
18  May  1233  (Car.  Reg.  DXL.,  M.D.R.  xvili.  418  and  420),  just  after  Count  Thomas' 
death.  The  war  probably  began  under  Thomas,  and  we  may  suspect  that  events 
repeated  themselves  from  the  facts  of  the  former  war  (above,  p.  399). 

2  Car.  Reg.  Dxxxvi.  {M.D.R.  vi.  604,  Cart.  Lausan.). 

3  Chroniqiies  de  Savoye  [M.H.P.  Script.  Ii.  139)  narrate  the  siege  and  capture  of 
Moncalieri  and  the  siege  of  Turin.  Besides  a  contamination  of  the  story  by  that 
of  the  later  Thomas  of  Savoy  (see  above,  p.  394,  n.  5),  the  capture  of  Testona  in 
1229  and  the  ravage  of  the  Turinese  fields  in  1225  have  probably  contributed  their 
share.  But  Count  Thomas  was  at  war  with  Turin  and  her  allies,  and  almost  certainly 
died  in  Italy.  His  tomb  is  shown  at  Chiusa  where  his  anniversary  was  regularly 
celebrated  in  1275  (Sclopis,  Considerazioni . . .intorno  a  Tominaso  I,  Mem.  Accad. 
Scien.  di  Torino,  xxxvi.  p.  73). 

*  Car.  Reg.  Dxxxvii.  :  "  Kal.  Maii  obiit  Tomas  comes  Sabaudie."  That  we 
must  read  "  Martii "  is  shown  by  the  date  of  Amadeus  IV's  first  document,  7  March 
1233  (Car.  Reg.  Dxxxviii.). 


Close  of  the   Piedmontese  war  415 

T5th  April  1235  enfeoff  his  Piedmontese  lands  beyond  Avigliana  to  his 
brother  and  heir,  Thomas  the  younger'.  By  that  time  hostihties  were 
nearly  at  an  end.  In  August  1233  he  had  made  peace  with  the 
Dauphin^  About  the  end  of  1234  Chieri  also  came  to  an  agreement 
with  her  foes^  So  did  Carignano  in  May  1235  by  a  complete  sub- 
mission to  Asti,  accompanied  by  a  very  small  reservation  in  favour  of 
the  Count  of  Savoy  and  their  immediate  lords^  It  was  time  to  make 
an  end  of  useless  bickerings,  and  on  the  i8th  November  1235  peace 
was  concluded  between  Amadeus  and  the  Turinese  League';  and  was 
followed  by  an  explanatory  charter  next  year".  The  Count  gave  up  all 
his  claims  on  the  city  of  Turin  and  surrendered  Collegno  to  Bishop 
and  Commune  as  a  fief  He  recovered  the  homage  of  the  rebellious 
Castellans,  and  kept  the  upper  castle  of  Cavour.  He  did  homage  to  the 
Bishop  of  Turin  for  Lower  Cavour.  With  regard  to  Pinerolo  twenty-four 
Pinerolese  jurors  were  to  declare  what  rights  he  might  legally  have 
there ;  but  it  was  provided  that  they  could  not  adjudge  him  the  more 
oppressive  feudal  financial  claims,  the  marriage-tax,  the  property  of 
intestates,  or  the  arbitrary  fodrum.  Thus  the  struggle  closed  for  some 
years,  till  a  new  forward  movement  was  begun  by  the  younger  Thomas. 
It  will  be  seen  that  the  great  Count  Thomas'  wars  were  by  no  means 
fruitless.  Vigone  and  Cavour  were  solid  additions  to  the  Savoyard 
State ;  and  the  various  rights  to  homage  over  the  Castellans  from 
Carignano  westwards  and  over  Saluzzo  were  definite  assets.  In  the  case 
of  the  former  they  ripened  into  real  dominion.  But  these  acquisitions 
had  been  made  at  an  enormous  cost,  due  to  Thomas'  insatiable  and 
visionary  ambition.  He  could  not  resign  himself  to  gains  here  and 
there,  but  struck,  not  once  but  several  times,  for  a  then  impossible 
dominion  from  the  Alps  to  the  sea. 

One  would  like  to  add  to  the  warlike  and  political  history  of  Count 
Thomas  a  youthful  romance.  The  Chroniques,  at  least,  give  him  one. 
They  say  that  he  fell  passionately  in  love  with  the  daughter  of  the 
Count  of  the  Genevois,  and  somewhat  tediously — it  is  a  way  they  have 
— conduct  his  courtship  to  that  point,  when  the  lady,  being  led  by 
her  ambitious  father  to  be  bride  of  the  adulterous  Philip  Augustus  of 
France,  is  captured  by  her  knightly  lover  on  the  way  and  happily  wed 
to  him^     There  is  no  impossibility  in  the  story,  for  at  the  date  of 

^  Car.  Keg.  CMLII. 

"^  This  is  implied  by  his  compensation  of  the  Dauphin's  Marshal  which  took  place 
on  a  visit  to  the  Dauphin  at.  Moirenc  (see  above,  p.  410,  n.  i). 
^  Gabotto,  L'AbazJa...di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  I.  p.  168. 
*  Sella,  Codex. ..de  Malabayla,  No.  687. 
'  Car.  Reg.  DLX.  {Car tario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  11.  p.  151). 
"  Car.  Reg.  DLxn.  (Carte... arcivesc.  di  Torino,  B.S.S.S.  xxxvi.  p.  228). 
7  M.H.P.  Script.  II.  131-8. 


4i6  Epilogue,   Thomas'  family 

Thomas'  marriage,  c.  1196,  Philip  Augustus  had  repudiated  his  second 
wife\  And,  since  the  contemporary  Enghsh  chronicler,  William  of 
Newburgh,  tells  the  tale  of  a  nameless  prince  of  the  Empire,  and  it 
also  appears  in  the  Chronicle  of  Haiitecombe'^,  we  seem  justified  in 
accepting  it. 

Not  a  little  uncertainty  rests  on  the  name  of  Thomas'  countess. 
Guichenon'  attempted  to  remove  it  by  making  him  marry  twice;  but 
Wurstemberger  has  conclusively  shown  that  he  had  only  one  wife  the 
daughter  of  Count  William  I  of  the  Genevois,  and  mother  of  all  his 
legitimate  children^  She  certainly  had  two  names  Margaret"^  and 
N(ichola?)*',   and    perhaps   a    third    Beatrice'.     In   any   case    she  was 

^  Wurstemberger,  I.  87-9,  who  accepts  the  story. 

2  M.H.P.  Script.  II.  671:  "uxor  ejus  filia  comitis  Gebennesii,  quam  cum  vellet 
sibi  accipere  in  conjugem  rex  Francie,  rapta  fuit  a  dicto  Thoma."  Chron.  AltJs 
authority  is  still  not  great,  but  William's  (Rolls  -Series,  II.  p.  459)  is  considerable. 
That  Thomas  was  married  about  1 196-7  is  shown  by  the  age  of  his  eldest  son  (and 
probably  eldest  child)  Amadeus  IV,  born  before  1200  (Car.  Reg.  cccxcix.)  and  not 
fourteen  in  March  1212  (Car.  Reg.  CDXXXV.),  and  marrying  a  child-daughter  in 
1224  (see  above,  p.  397,  n.  5). 

*  Hist.  gen.  Sav.  pp.  253-4. 

*  Wurstemberger,  op.  cit.  i.  pp.  90-4.     See  also  P.S.  on  p.  420. 

^  Margaret  is  established  by  at  least  two  original  documents,  Car.  Reg.  CDLXiv. 
(Wurstemberger,  iv.  p.  23,  Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  53),  which  has  Margaret,  and 
Car.  Reg.  dccix.  (Wurstemberger,  iv.  p.  96),  which  has  M.  Further,  Albert,  Tri. 
Font.  [M.G.H.  xxill.  938)  calls  her  Margaret  of  Fusceneis. 

®  N.  appears  in  two  original  documents,  Car.  Reg.  dxli.  (Cipolla,  Mottumenta 
Novalic.  I.  273),  and  Collegno,  op.  cit.  facsimile  (opp.  p.  89).  Carutti's  suggestion 
(Sup.  p.  37)  of  N(os)  is  untenable  in  each  case,  owing  to  the  immediate  context  in  the 
third  person.  "  Nichola  filia  comitis  Gebennarum  "  appears  in  Car.  Reg.  cccxciv. 
(M.H.P.  Leges,  l.  i)  which  is  however  only  a  fourteenth  century  copy. 

"^  The  Chroniqties  give  her  the  name  Beatrice.  This  is  supported  by  Pingone 
(quoted  by  Wurstemberger,  iv.  Nos.  166  and  448)  by  the  evidence  of  a  seal,  and  the 
inscription  on  her  tomb  at  Hautecombe.  Since  however  on  the  document  (Car.  Reg. 
DCCIX.)  to  which  the  seal  (now  lost)  was  attached,  Pingone  misread  the  M.  of  the 
Countess'  name  B.,  as  he  also  does  elsewhere  (Car.  Reg.  dxli.),  the  weiy;ht  of  his 
evidence  is  not  great.  As  to  the  tomb  inscription  (also  now  destroyed),  it  has  a 
striking  resemblance  to,  though  by  no  means  an  identity  with,  the  obit  of  a  Countess 
Beatrice  in  the  Chron.  Alt.  {M.H.P.  Script,  il.  673).  But  the  latter,  who  is  not 
styled  daughter  of  the  Genevan  Count,  is  said  to  die  8  April  1230.  Now  Pingone 
gives  for  the  date  of  his  epitaph  8  April  1257,  and  Thomas'  widow  is  alive  in  1256 
(Wurstemberger,  iv.  No. 430).  There  are  then  two  alternatives:  did  both  epitaph  and 
obit  refer  to  Beatrice,  widow  of  Humbert  III,  and  she  die  in  1230,  and  did  Pingone, 
knowing  that  Thomas'  widow  survived  to  1256,  corrupt  and  alter  his  texts;  or  is  the 
date  1230  in  Chron.  Alt.  corrupt  (which  the  position  of  the  obit  between  1253  and 
1258  makes  likely),  and  both  obit  and  epitaph  really  refer  to  Thomas'  widow, 
who  would  then  die  in  1257?  The  last  seems  to  me  right;  "Beatrice"  does 
not  appear  in  the  text,  but  only  in  the  title,  of  the  obit,  and,  in  view  of  Pingone's 
inaccuracy,  and  that  of  Chron.  Alt.,  I  think  that  the  name  Beatrice  is  erroneous, 
slipping  in  from  the  wives  of  Humbert  III,  and  of  Thomas,  Count  Thomas'  son. 


Thomas'  sons  417 

a  warlike  dame,  fitted  to  preside  at  tilt  and  tournament  \     She  long 
survived  her  husband  and  died  on  the  8th  April  1257. 

Eight^  sons  and  two'  daughters  were  the  fruit  of  this  union.  In 
order  of  age,  the  sons  were,  Amadeus,  Humbert,  Aymon,  Thomas, 
William,  Peter,  Boniface  and  Philip ^  The  Count  destined  the  five 
younger  of  these  for  a  clerical  career,  much  against  their  natural  bent ; 
the  three  elder  were  to  continue  the  secular  glories  of  his  house. 
Humbert,  the  last  of  his  name  for  many  generations,  after  taking  an 
active  part  in  affairs  ^  died  before  his  father  in  I223^  His  place  was 
taken  by  his  brother  Aymon,  who  seems  to  have  been  placed  in  charge 
of  Chablais''.  On  his  father's  death  he  became  lord  of  that  province 
under  his  brother's  suzerainty,  and  whereas  Amadeus  IV  was  most 
intimate  with  Thomas,  Aymon,  Peter  and  Philip  hung  closely  together. 
Two  of  the  clerical  brothers  soon  deserted  their  vocation.  Thomas 
received  Piedmont  from  Avigliana  eastwards  in  fief  from  the  Count, 
and  became  for  a  time  by  marriage  Count  of  Flanders.  From  him  the 
later  Savoyards  descend.  Peter,  already  heir  of  Faucigny  by  marriage, 
became  lord  of  Chablais  on  Aymon's  death.  It  was  he,  the  greatest 
of  the  brothers,  who  conquered  Vaud  with  the  aid  of  the  wealth 
he   derived  from  his  English  nephew-in-law,    Henry    IIP,    and   later 


1  Car.  Reg.  CMXLIX.  From  henceforward  the  Counts  of  Savoy  become  patrons 
of  the  gai  science,  where  they  are  sung  so  charmingly.  The  "  Don  de  Savoya"  thus 
celebrated  by  de  Vaquieras  in  1201,  who  is  elected  Podestd.  of  the  ladies'  troop,  is  no 
doubt  Countess  Margaret. 

*  So  Chron.  Alt.  and  Matthew  Paris  (Hist.  Major.  Rolls  Series,  vi,  p.  442).  The 
supposed  ninth  son,  Bishop  Amadeus  of  Maurienne,  has  been  demolished  by  Carutti, 
Sup.  XCII.  There  seem  to  have  been  also  two  bastards,  Berold  and  Benedict,  probably 
of  Count  Thomas  (Wurstemberger,  i.  105). 

^  So  Chron.  Alt.  For  the  daughters,  added  by  Guichenon,  see  Wurstemberger, 
I.  pp.  98  and  106. 

*  For  the  order  in  age,  see  Wurstemberger,  I.  99-103. 

*  e.g.  Car.  Reg.  CDLXvni.  (Wurstemberger,  iv.  No.  55),  12  Jan,  1222/3. 

"  He  was  dead  by  15  Nov.  1223  (Car.  Sup.  LXViii.  Collegno,  op.  cit.  Doc.  38). 
The  Chroniques  give  a  fable  of  his  being  a  Teutonic  Knight  and  dying  in  Prussia. 
But  the  Teutonic  Order  had  not  turned  its  crusade  thither  in  1223.  Matthew  Paris 
calls  him  the  most  handsome  of  the  family. 

'  He  is  clearly  in  possession  on  Thomas'  death.     See  above,  p.  414. 

*  Thomas'  relations  with  Henry  HI  had  begun  early.  In  1220  one  of  his  sons 
(almost  certainly  William)  had  received  the  living  of  Combe  by  provision  of  the  Papal 
Legate  Pandulf  (Royal  Letters,  Henry  III,  Rolls  Series,  i.  78).  In  1232  William, 
along  with  other  Roman  ecclesiastics,  had  received  damage  to  his  property  at  Reculver 
in  Kent,  and  Henry  HI  promised  redress  to  Thomas  (Car.  Reg.  DXXXii.;  Close  Rolls, 
1231-4,  p.  135)  and  took  measures  to  enforce  it  (Close  Rolls,  12J1-4,  p.  128).  William 
was  probably  Rector  of  Reculver,  since  his  brother  Philip  subsequently  (1243)  received 
that  living  (Close  Rolls,  12J2-4J,  p.  377).  He  also  held,  till  his  election  to  the 
Bishopric  of  Valence,  the  livings  of  St  Michael's-on-Wyre  in  Lancashire  (Patent  Rolls, 

P.  a  27 


41 8  Epilogue,   Thomas'  family 

reorganized  Savoy  itself  when  he  at  last  inherited  the  county.  William, 
Bishop-elect  of  Valence,  Liege  and  Winchester,  and  Philip,  Elect  of 
Valence  and  Lyons,  then  Count  by  marriage  of  Franche  Comte  and  by 
inheritance  of  Savoy,  remained,  one  all  his  life,  and  the  other  for  many 
years,  clerics  in  name,  but  they  belonged  to  that  species  of  warlike  and 
able  statesmen  on  whom  the  Holy  See  grew  so  much  to  depend  in 
its  increasing  absorption  in  secular  ambitions^  Only  Boniface,  the 
Carthusian,  proceeded  to  the  higher  orders.  He  was  successively  Elect 
of  Belley,  and  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  in  the  nineteenth  century 
was  beatified  along  with  his  grandfather. 

These  were  the  eight  adventurous  sons  of  Count  Thomas  who 
carried  the  fame  of  their  house  half  across  Europe,  from  England  to 
Sicily,  with  the  smallest  of  means.  Nor  were  their  two  sisters,  Margaret 
and  Beatrice,  the  Countesses  of  Kyburg  and  Provence,  behind  them  in 
maintaining  the  reputation  their  father  had  won  for  Savoy.  He  was  its 
author.  For,  although  in  Italy,  Thomas'  success,  after  all  his  schemes 
and  continual  activity,  was  small  and  counterbalanced  by  serious  dis- 
advantages, if  we  take  the  result  of  his  entire  foreign  policy  and  of  its 
manifestations  beyond  the  Alps,  we  have  a  very  different  judgement  to 
record.  He  had  found  Savoy  pressed  back  into  her  mountains  after 
long,  futile  border  wars.  He  left  a  purposeful  expansion  in  progress. 
Avoiding  to  the  best  of  his  ability  bickerings  with  the  Dauphin,  he 
pressed  north  and  west.  In  Bugey  he  made  the  first  advances  towards 
a  continuous  dominion  as  far  as  the  Rhone.  In  the  Jurane  land  he  was 
still  more  epoch-making.  It  was  really  he,  in  consequence  of  his  victory 
over  Berthold  V  of  Zahringen,  who  broke  up  the  German  Rectorate  of 
Burgundy.  In  him  the  Romance  seigneurs  and  towns  gained  a  leader, 
and  with  the  extinction  of  the  Zahringen  line,  the  Emperor  found  it 
impossible  to  renew  the  Rectorate.  It  was  inevitable  that  some  new 
authority  should  arise  in  the  splintered  territory  thus  left  to  its  fate,  and 
in  the  sequel  that  new  authority  was  the  Count  of  Savoy  with  his 
"Barony  of  Vaud."  In  the  development  of  "Suisse  Romande," 
preserving  at  the  same  time  its  Romance  character  and  its  independence 
of  France,  Savoy  played  an  important  part.  Curiously  enough  the 
Swiss  Cantons  took  later  the  same  role  as  the  Zahringen  Rectors,  and 
with  a  different  outcome,  for  they  were  victorious,  and  forced  back  the 

Henry  III,  pp.  8,  147,  169)  and  Bingham  in  Notts.  (/^.  p.  9).  The  other  brothers, 
Peter,  Philip,  and  Boniface,  do  not  appear  in  the  English  Close  and  Patent  Rolls  till 
after  Count  Thomas'  death.  In  1232  there  is  no  question  of  a  fief  held  by  William, 
although  in  1337  he  had  charge  of  the  Honour  of  Richmond  {Patent  Rolls,  1232-4^, 
p.  136). 

^  e.g.  Philip,  the  Elect  of  Ravenna,  Gregory  of  Montelongo,  Elect  of  Aquileia, 
and  Cardinal  Octavian  Ubaldini  under  Innocent  IV. 


Thomas'  achievements  and  character  419 

Savoyard  frontier  to  the  Alps.  By  that  time,  however,  Suisse  Romande 
had  become  able  to  resist  Germanization,  even  under  the  pressure  of 
Bernese  rule. 

Still  more  important  than  the  standing  which  Thomas  won  and 
maintained  among  the  lesser  princes  of  Europe,  was  the  influence 
of  his  reign  on  the  internal  progress  of  Savoy  itself.  In  his  time  came 
the  almost  inevitable  alliance  of  a  medieval  prince  with  the  townsfolk 
among  his  subjects.  Charter  after  charter  of  his,  preceded  by  only  one 
and  that  a  Lombard  document,  attest  his  policy  of  creating  a  burgess 
class.  So  far,  perhaps,  it  was  more  a  matter  of  date  and  historic 
necessity  than  anything  else,  but  Thomas  and  his  son  Peter  seem  to 
have  shown  a  genuine  sympathy  with  the  town-dwellers  and  tact  in 
dovetailing  the  comital  into  the  town  administration.  With  this  aspect 
of  his  rule,  however,  I  must  deal  in  detail  in  the  next  chapter. 

It  has  already  been  suggested  that  in  some  ways  Count  Thomas  was 
a  forerunner  of  Charles  of  Anjou  ;  and  certainly  in  their  ambition  and 
in  some  of  the  problems  they  had  to  face  there  is  a  distinct  resemblance. 
But  otherwise  the  little,  and  it  is  very  little,  we  know  of  Count  Thomas 
implies  a  kindlier  man  in  grain  than  Charles  was.  There  is  the  story 
which  tells  how  a  peasant  crossing  the  Mont  Cenis  was  fleeced  of  an 
extortionate  toll  by  the  official  in  charge,  when  the  Count,  unknown, 
was  watching,  and  how  Thomas  thereupon  loaded  that  well-born  and 
courtly  man  with  his  victim's  burden,  and  sent  him  twice  to  climb  the 
three  thousand  odd  feet  of  the  ascent  ^  Such  a  prince  was  naturally 
popular.  That  he  was  an  eager  warrior  in  true  medieval  fashion  is 
obvious ;  we  can  hardly  find  a  peaceful  year  in  his  reign.  Much 
enthusiasm  for  Empire  or  Papacy  or  strong  preferences  in  his  policy 
I  do  not  think  are  traceable.  But  it  is  quite  likely  that  he  had  a  real 
knightly  reluctance  to  break  an  oath  of  fealty  once  taken.  Thus  he 
remains  an  Ottonian  to  the  last,  nor  do  we  know  an  instance  where  he 
disregarded  the  feudal  obligation.  Of  course  his  oath  was  always  to 
the  person,  not  the  office ;  and  so  he  would  have  no  scruple  in  refusing 
homage  to,  or  grasping  the  regalia  from,  a  new-elected  Bishop  of 
Geneva. 

It  goes  without  saying  that  a  notable  medieval  prince  was  a  patron 
of  monasteries ;  and  Thomas  duly  confirmed  the  charters  of  those  in 
his  lands  and  added  gifts  of  his  own.  It  was  no  doubt  the  degeneration 
of  the  older  orders,  of  which  the  debts  of  S.  Giusto  di  Susa  are 
a  symptom,  which  led  him  chiefly  to  favour  the  Chartreuses  then 
springing  up  among  his  mountains.     That  of  Losa,  near  Susa,  was  his 

'  Matthew  Paris  (Rolls  Series,  vi.  443).  His  bias  against  the  Savoyards  adds 
;her  weight  to  his  testimony.  This  passage  has  escaped  the  notice  of  previous 
ters. 


further  wei; 
writers 


27  —  2 


420  Epilogue,   Thomas'  family 

own  foundation'.  But  the  monasteries  now  drift  out  of  the  main 
stream  of  Savoyard  history.  The  time  when  their  construction  affords 
a  measure  of  the  progress  of  civilization,  and  their  privileges  are  the 
best  source  of  our  knowledge  of  local  government,  draws  to  a  close. 
Not  that  learning  and  industry  ceased  to  flourish  in  them,  but  they  are 
no  longer  pioneers  of  humanity.  The  mendicant  friars  were  still  for 
a  time  to  maintain  the  ascetic  ideal  and  be  the  spiritual  leaders  of 
Europe — Thomas  was  a  contemporary  of  St  Francis  and  St  Dominic — 
but  the  advance  of  the  later  Middle  Ages  was  to  be  on  secular  lines. 

P.S.  Since  the  above  pages  were  already  in  print  I  have  read  the 
Prince  de  Faucigny-Lucinge's  work,  Le  viariage  de  Thomas  P^,  in 
which  the  author  advances  the  thesis  that  Thomas'  wife  was  a  daughter 
of  the  Sire  de  Faucigny.  But  Car.  Reg.  cmxiv.,  where  Count  William  II 
of  the  Genevois,  son  of  William  I,  calls  Amadeus  IV  of  Savoy  his 
nepos,  seems  to  me  decisive  as  to  Margaret's  real  parentage ;  and  it  is 
confirmed  by  Thomas'  intervention  in  Vaud  (see  above  pp.  373-6). 

^  See  the  various  documents  in  Carutti's  Regesta  and  Supplemento.  Those  dealing 
with  Piedmontese  Chartreuses  were  published  by  Collegno,  Certose  del  Piemonte 
(Misc.  stor.  ital.  Ser.  in.  Vol.  i.). 


CHAPTER   VI 

THE  SAVOYARD  STATE  UNDER  HUMBERT  III  AND  THOMAS. 

Section  I.    Territories. 

The  dominions  of  Humbert  III  and  his  son,  like  those  of  their 
ancestors,  as  I  have  often  had  occasion  to  insist,  were  composed  of  two 
main  divisions,  one  the  small  mid-Burgundian  State,  soon  to  be  known 
as  Savoy,  the  other  its  Italian  dependency  in  Piedmont.  Both  of  these 
gave  a  title  to  the  Count.  For  the  first  Humbert  adopted  either  the 
style  of  Count  of  Maurienne^  or  that  of  Count  of  Savoy"  or  sometimes 
both  together ^  The  title  Count  of  Savoy  appears  to  belong  more 
especially  to  his  later  years,  though  it  never  ousts  that  of  Count  of 
Maurienne,  and  probably  points  to  the  fact  that  his  favourite  residence 
was  in  Savoy  proper,  e.g.  at  Montmelian.  This  may  be  the  source  of 
the  insistence  of  the  Chroniques  on  his  frequent  residence  at  Hautecombe. 
The  origin  of  the  title  Marchio  Italiae  has  been  discussed  above*. 
When  he  adds  a  predicate  at  all  to  the  simple  marchio^  which  he  only 
does  after  1167,  Humbert  uses  Italiae^,  and  de  Italia^,  and  never  in 
Italia,  which  appears  early  in  his  son's  reign. 

Thomas'  titles  in  a  way  are  a  simpler  matter.  He  evidently  preferred 
to  style  himself  Conies  Mauriannensis  or  Maurianae,  but  his  neighbours 
almost  invariably  call  him  Count  of  Savoy ;  and  the  latter  title  appears 
on  one  original  document  of  his  at  leasts     Thus  the  way  is  prepared 

1  Car.  Jieg.  cccii.  cccvi.  cccxl.  ccc.xi.vi. 

2  Car.  Jieg.  CCCXVIII.  cccxli.  cccli.  ccci.v.  ccclviii.  ccclxxxvii. 
•''  Car.  Reg.  cccxxxiv. 

*  See  above,  p.  308. 

*  Car.  Reg.  cccxxxv.  cccxlvi.  ccclxix.  ccclxxxvu. 
®  Car.  Reg.  cccxli.  cccxli  I. 

7  Cut.  Sup.  Lxviii.  (Cipolla,  Carte  di  S.  Giusto,  Bull.  Istit.  stor.  ital.  18,  p.  109). 
Savoy  appears  in  other  grants  of  Count  Thomas;  but  was  often  inserted,  to  replace 
Maurienne,  by  a  later  copyist.  In  the  same  way,  there  is  often  a  doubt  whether 
Italiae  or  in  Italia  was  in  the  original  text. 


422  Territories 

for  Count  of  Savoy  to  be  the  usual  official  style  in  the  next  reign.  We 
may  infer,  I  think,  that  the  group  of  Humbertine  counties  were  beginning 
to  be  considered  a  single  state,  and  that  Savoy  was  the  name  coming 
into  use  for  the  group.  With  regard  to  the  Marquessate  there  is  a  slow 
transition  from  a  predominant  use  of  Italiae  Marchio  at  the  beginning 
to  a  predominant  use  of  in  Italia  Marchio  at  the  end  of  his  reign. 
The  latter,  although  an  innovation,  shows  that  the  traditional  meaning 
of  the  predicate  continued  to  be  well  understood. 

Since  the  cancelling  of  the  grant  to  Berthold  IV  of  Zahringen, 
Humbert  III  had  admittedly  enjoyed  a  dignity  which  must  have  given 
him  an  important  moral  advantage.  He  was  a  technical  Prince  of  the 
Empire ^  i.e.  he  held  of  no  other  lord  but  the  Emperor  or  ecclesiastical 
dignitaries  who  were  also  immediate  vassals  of  the  Sovran.  Now  when 
the  strength  of  a  grand  seigneur  so  much  depended  on  the  vassals  who 
were  bound  to  him  by  homage  and  fealty,  it  was  a  great  gain  not  to  be 
bound  himself  to  other  lords,  for,  in  case  he  was  so  bound,  he  must 
either  perform  his  own  duties  as  a  vassal  and  be  distracted  thereby  from 
any  state-policy,  or  loosen  the  consistency  of  his  own  dominions.  It 
was  freedom  from  this  consideration,  the  origin  of  so  much  of  the 
careful  legality  of  the  Middle  Ages,  which  was  one  factor  in  the  rise  in 
power  of  the  Kings  of  France  and  of  the  Princes  of  the  Empire  in 
Germany.  The  House  of  Savoy  seems  to  have  enjoyed  this  liberty  till 
the  thirteenth  century,  for  the  suzerainty  of  the  Duke  of  Zahringen 
was  transient  and  resisted,  any  superiority  of  the  Counts  of  the  Genevois 
was  soon  cast  off^,  and  they  do  not  seem  to  have  acknowledged  even 
ecclesiastical  superiors^  save  for  outskirts  of  their  dominions*.  It  was 
that  very  fealty  he  owed  to  the  Bishop  of  Turin  which  was  Humbert  Ill's 
weak  point,  as  we  have  seen.     But  on  the  whole  he  could  claim  a  higher 

^  See  above,  p.  350,  n.  4,  "per  justam  principum  imperii  sentenciam  et  parium 
suorum."  The  Counts  are  not  seldom  called  "princeps"  in  consequence.  See  above, 
p.  288,  n.  6,  p.  297,  n.  I,  p.  298,  n.  2,  and  p.  329,  n.  2.  For  the  status  of  the  Princes 
of  the  Empire  in  the  latter  twelfth  century,  see  Mayer,  Deut.  u.  Franz.  Verfassungs- 
geschichte,  11.  129-31.  Ficker,  Forsch.  Reich,  u.  Rechtsg.  pp.  226-7,  argues  against 
the  Counts  being  Princes  of  the  Empire  because  the  Imperial  Chancery  does  not  style 
them  illustres. 

^  See  above,  pp.  86,  237-8. 

^  Here  lies,  I  think,  one  of  the  features  of  Savoyard  history  missed  by  M.  de 
Manteyer,  in  his  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  Savoyard  dominions  from  counties  enfeoffed 
by  their  Bishops. 

*  ForChillon  (Car.  Reg.  CDLXXViii.  M.D.R.  xxix.  241) ;  the  Count  owed  homage 
to  the  see  of  Sion,  cf.  above,  p.  92  ;  and  the  Bishop  of  Sion  received  his  regalia 
firom  the  Count,  which  made  their  feudal  relation  something  like  an  alliance.  He  was 
vassal  to  the  Bishop  of  Turin  for  some  lands  in  Piedmont,  as  well  as  to  the  Archbishop 
of  Lyons  and  the  Bishop  of  Geneva  for  unspecified  possessions  (see  above,  pp.  76  and 
87).     Thomas  was  vassal  of  the  immediate  Abbot  of  Pinerolo  (see  above,  p.  394). 


The  Counts'  status  423 

ank  and  prestige  and  a  greater  freedom  of  action  than  most  seigneurs. 
It  is  true  that  Thomas  lost  this  preeminence  and  freedom  in  1224,  when 
he  became  the  vassal  of  Asti ;  but  that  was  a  transient  phenomenon  at 
a  time  when  the  relations  of  vassalage  were  becoming  more  and  more 
technical  and  complicated  ;  and  after  all  the  dignity  of  Prince  of  the 
Empire  was  formally  restored  to  Amadeus  V  within  a  century  ^ 

Thus  in  reality  father  and  son  owned  only  the  Emperor  for  their 
superior.  Had  the  imperial  prerogatives  been  enforced,  this  would  have 
meant  a  serious  limitation  of  their  power  in  Savoy,  as  well  as  a  potent 
influence  on  their  foreign  policy ;  but  in  practice  the  Burgundian 
Counts  had  long  exercised  the  entire  regal  authority  in  their  districts'-. 
As  early  as  Rudolf  Ill's  time  they  had  obtained  the  whole  of  the 
judicial  profits ^  and  in  the  confusion  of  the  German  conquest,  they 
had  become  possessed  of  the  remnants  of  the  royal  demesne.  They 
could  impose  banna,  i.e.  make  offences  and  declare  their  punishment. 
In  result  we  may  regard  the  Counts  of  Savoy  at  Humbert  Ill's  death 
as  lesser  feudal  princes,  analogous  to  the  Dukes  of  French  Burgundy  or 
the  Counts  of  Barcelona  under  the  French  Crown,  or  to  the  Counts  of 
Provence  in  their  native  kingdom  of  Burgundy. 

As  in  the  other  chief  states  of  Burgundy,  such  as  Franche  Comte,  the 
Dauphind  and  Provence,  primogeniture  was  the  rule  in  Savoy.  In  fact, 
no  other  method  of  succession  was  practised  from  the  time  of  Humbert 
Whitehands.  This  did  not  mean  that  later  rule  of  the  representation 
of  a  deceased  elder  son  by  his  son  had  come  into  existence,  although 
the  succession  actually  did  go  in  the  direct  line.  The  history  of  the 
thirteenth  century  shows  the  opposite.  Uncles  supersede  their  infant 
nephews  two  or  three  times.  That  eventual  female  succession  was 
allowed  is  shown  by  the  treaty  of  Humbert  III  with  Henry  II'*;  that  it 
was  postponed  till  the  extinction  of  near  male  lines  seems  proved  by 
the  succession  of  Amadeus  IP.  Younger  sons  were  appanaged  and 
daughters  dowered  with  fiefs  owing  homage  to  the  head  of  the  House ^. 

1  By  the  Emperor  Henry  VII,  with  the  new  title,  Prince  of  Piedniont. 

-  Radulf.  de  Diceto,  sub  1178  (Rolls  Series,  i.  p.  427),  "  Burgundiae  regnum,  a 
multis  retro  temporibus  usque  nunc,  suppresso  regis  nomine,  per  comites  adminis- 
tratum." 

'  Thietmari,  Chron.  VII.  21  {M.G.H.  Script.  III.  846),  "In  hiis  partibus  nullus 
vocatur  comes,  nisi  is  qui  ducis  honorem  possidet."  According  to  Mayer,  Detit.  u. 
Fram.  Verfassunqsgeschichte,  II.  361-72,  tlie  (Jerman  Duke  would  receive  the  two- 
thirds  of  the  judicial  profits,  which  otherwise  went  to  the  King  (one-third  going  to  the 
Count) ;  called  out  the  armed  forces  of  his  Duchy;  could  hold  "  at  mercy  "  offenders 
against  his  commands  and  dignity;  could  exercise  justice  over  the  royal  "  Gesinde," 
and  possessed  the  right  of  inquisition.     Cf.  above,  p.  7. 

■*  See  above,  pp.  339-41. 

**  See  above,  pp.  241-2. 

8  See  above,  pp.  223-4,  ^95.  358  "•  .S.  415.  and  4' 7- 


424  Territories 

This  was  in  accordance  with  French  feudal  law^  The  practice,  in  spite 
of  the  evils  caused  by  the  number  of  Thomas'  sons  and  the  over-large 
appanages  they  succeeded  in  obtaining,  allowed  the  family  inheritance 
on  the  whole  to  be  kept  together  in  marked  contrast  to  the  prevalent 
Italian  subdivisions. 

The  lands,  which  were  subject  to  the  Counts,  have  already  come 
under  review  in  preceding  sections',  but  here  I  may  rehearse  them 
as  they  existed  under  Humbert  III  and  Thomas.  They  were  officially 
styled  their  comitatus'^,  but  I  hope  it  will  not  be  inconvenient,  if 
I  describe  them  under  the  three  aspects  of  dominions,  patrimony  and 
demesne.  By  dominions  I  understand  the  territory  subjected  to  the 
governmental  authority  of  the  Counts,  by  patrimony  the  entirety  of 
their  alods  and  fiefs,  and  by  demesne  the  parts  of  their  patrimony  which 
they  did  not  enfeoff  in  barony,  i.e.  with  jurisdiction*. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  first  two  categories  would  very  nearly  coincide 
in  the  case  of  the  Counts  of  Savoy,  nearly  all  of  whose  territories  were 
held  in  fief  of  them,  owing  partly  no  doubt  to  the  circumstances  under 
which  the  Saracen  marauders  were  expelled  and  the  valleys  resettled^. 
But  there  were  points  of  non-coincidence.  Thus  Humbert  III  in  his 
earlier  years  exercised  his  comital  (i.e.  quasi-regal)  dominion  over  the 
Bishoprics  of  Sion,  Belley  and  Tarentaise,  as  well  as  various  Abbeys, 
the  lands  of  which  were  allodial.  Here  there  seems  no  question  of 
enfeoffment  of  land^  The  Count's  rights,  though  all  public  and  not 
strictly  feudal  in  their  origin,  seem  to  have  fallen  into  two  divisions. 
The  first  was  the  prerogative  of  investing  the  Bishops  with  their  functions 
as  public  officials  and  more  especially  with  those  which  by  Barbarossa's 
time  were  called  the  regalia.  What  the  ceremony  consisted  in,  so  far 
as  the  Counts  of  Savoy  were  concerned  after  the  Concordat  of  Worms 
forbade  investiture  by  staff  and  ring,  is  not  clear  ;  but  fealty  and  homage 
were  almost  certainly  insisted  on  as  a  rule'.     The  extent  of  the  regalia 

^  See  Mayer,  Deut.  u.  Franz.   Verfasstaigsgeschichte.,  II.  pp.  172-3. 

2  See  above,  pp.  74-100,  269-70,  276,  286-7,  .^17-18,  335-7.  347-9-  375-7.  4i5- 

^  See  above,  p.  (S2  and  n.  7. 

*  It  seems  improbable  that  the  Counts  (or  other  magnates)  should  not  enfeoff 
single  knights'  fees  on  their  domain  (without  jurisdiction)  in  order  to  provide  them- 
selves with  a  force  of  heavy  cavalry,  the  decisive  arm.  Otherwise,  save  for  the 
"  unfree  milites"  they  would  be  wholly  dependent  on  their  barons,  who  did  so  enfeoff 
to  provide  for  all  or  part  of  their  knights'  service. 

'  See  above,  pp.  5-6,  147. 

*  See  above,  pp.  84,  93-4,  269,  301-2.  But  the  Count's  powers  over  the  Bishop 
of  Sion  could  not  amount  to  much.  There  is  no  record  of  the  right  to  the  spolia. 
See  above,  p.  422  and  n.  4.  For  abbey-lands  held  in  alod,  see  above,  pp.  •272, 
294,  298. 

''  Cf.  Reese,  Die  staatsrechtliche  Stellung  der  Bischdfe  Burgunds  und  Italiens 
tenter  Kaiser  Friedrich  /,  pp.  1 1  ff.     But  I  think  he  goes  too  far  in  assuming  that 


Extent  of  Savoyard  territory  425 

conferred  would  vary  from  case  to  case,  the  Bishop  of  Sion  for  instance 
apparently  having  complete  possession  of  all  rights.  But  they  might  be 
quite  restricted,  and  then  the  second  class  of  the  Count's  rights  came 
into  play.  This  was  the  power  of  exercising  some  of  the  regalia  within 
the  episcopal  estates,  as  he  claimed  to  do  in  the  episcopia  of  Belley  and 
Tarentaise.  It  was  of  course,  like  the  right  to  invest,  part  of  the  royal 
prerogative  which  had  probably  been  usurped  by  the  Counts  in  the 
break-up  of  the  Burgundian  kingdom  under  Rudolf  III.  On  the  other 
hand  Humbert  III  had  patrimonial  rights  to  homage  from  some  powerful 
lords,  such  as  the  Sires  de  Beaujeu  and  de  Coligny,  and  perhaps  that 
from  the  former  already  included  all  the  lands  they  held  in  the  Empire^ 
and  therefore  well  outside  the  counties  where  Humbert  had  ancient 
governmental  powers.  To  these  Thomas  added  the  homage  of  the 
Marquess  of  Saluzzo  for  part  of  his  lands.  Over  such  vassals  and  for 
such  artificial  homage,  which  was  possibly  in  Burgundy  the  price  of 
intermarriage  with  a  high-descended  house,  there  could  be  no  real 
dominion. 

In  Humbert's  and  Thomas'  Burgundian  dominions  therefore  we 
may  include  the  ancient  counties  of  Savoy  proper,  Belley ^  Maurienne, 
'larentaise,  Old-Chablais  and  Aosta,  and  their  immune  lands  in  ancient 
Sermorens,  the  Viennois,  the  Lyonnais,  the  Genevois,  New-Chablais, 
and  Vaud,  as  well  perhaps  as  some  scraps  of  Graisivaudan.  Their 
patrimony  was  very  nearly  identical,  but  was  nominally  wider  in  some 
parts  and  actually  narrower  in  others,  especially  in  Humbert's  earlier 
years.  But  the  close  of  his  life  was  attended  by  three  heavy  losses  in 
dominion,  viz.  the  Bishoprics  of  Sion,  Tarentaise  and  Belley.  That  of 
Sion,  which  is  the  simplest  matter  and  the  soonest  made  good,  occurred 
latest,  when  Humbert  was  put  under  the  imperial  ban.  On  his  son 
Thomas  being  restored  to  favour  by  the  Emperor  Henry  VI  in  11 89, 
the  right  to  invest  the  Bishop  of  Sion  with  the  regalia  was  expressly 
withheld  and  the  Bishop  declared  an  immediate  vassal  of  the  Empire. 
It  was  not  long,  however,  before  Thomas  restored  and  enlarged  the 
Savoyard  supremacy*. 

all  Burgundian  prelates  did  homage  for  their  regalia,  even  when  it  is  not  mentioned  in 
the  sources.  It  seems  specially  improbable  that  the  strong  Alexandrines,  St  Anthelm 
and  Aymon  of  Tarentaise,  did  so,  and  if  Frederick's  charter  to  the  former  (see  below, 
p.  426,  n.  7)  did  not  really  touch  the  investiture  question,  Aymon  was  certainly 
invested  by  the  Emperor. 

'  See  above,  pp.  368,  n.  3,  295,  n.  3  and  Wurstemberger,  I  v.  pp.  345  and  412. 

-  Since  Pierrechatel  and  Rossillon  appear  in  the  thirteenth  century  demesnes  of 
Savoy,  the  rights  of  the  Sires  de  Beaujeu  there  must  have  been  got  rid  of  or  diminished. 
See  above,  p.  340. 

^  See  above,  pp.  356,  376,  399.  The  fact  that  the  Sire  de  Martigny  was  a  vassal 
of  the  Bishop,  not  of  the  Count  (Menabrea,  Les  Origines  fiodales,  pp.  361-2),  would 


426  Territories 

The  Bishop  of  Belley,  as  we  have  seenS  obtained  the  regalia  of  his 
episcophtm  and  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  over  the  latter  from  Frederick 
Barbarossa  in  1175.  Henceforward  there  continued  a  long  dispute 
between  Count  and  Bishop  on  the  subject  of  these  regalia  and  the 
jurisdiction.  The  Count's  right  to  invest  the  Bishop  was  not  denied  : 
but  apparently  he  was  to  have  no  rights  over  the  Bishop  once-invested  ^ 
The  controversy  dragged  on  for  many  years,  till  a  partial  settlement  was 
come  to  in  Amadeus  V's  time.  By  this  document*  the  Bishop  preserved 
his  jurisdiction  and  freedom  from  feudal  service  intact,  while  the 
question  of  the  regalia  was  left  undecided.  In  practice  he  sent  his 
feudal  quota  as  a  matter  of  courtesy*,  and  did  not  issue  coins  of  his 
own.  Still  the  Httle  Bishopric  must  have  formed  an  irritating  enclave 
henceforward^. 

As  to  Tarentaise  the  case  was  even  worse.  St  Peter  II  had  always 
been  faithful  to  the  son  of  his  old  friend;  but  his  successor  Aymon  II 
could  not  resist  the  temptation  of  recovering  the  ancient  position  of 
his  see.  In  the  course  of  Humbert's  second  estrangement  from  the 
Emperor'',  the  Archbishop  obtained  the  direct  investiture  of  the  regalia 
of  his  episcopium  from  Frederick,  becoming  thereby  a  Prince  of  the 
Empire.  Not  only  did  the  Count  thus  legally  lose  his  most  important 
subject ;  but  a  special  vague  clause  of  the  diploma  authorized  the  Arch- 
bishop to  recover  the  homage  of  those  fiefs  of  his  church  which  had 
either  been  lost  or  merely  dissimulated'.     If  this  did  not  refer  to  some 

increase  the  importance  of  these  regalia  for  the  Great  St  Bernard  Pass.  The  loss  was 
all  the  more  important,  because  the  Count  still  remained  the  Bishop's  vassal  for 
Chillon. 

^  See  above,  p.  342. 

'^  Car.  Reg.cCQ'LU.  {Gallia  Christiana,  XV.  313),  "Omnia  civitatis  regalia,  viz. 
monetam,  teloneum,  pedagium,  ripaticum,  aquaticum,  pascua,  piscationes,  venationes, 
silvas,  stirpaticum  et  omnem  districtum  et  jurisdictionem  civitatis  et  suarum  possessio- 
num...episcopo...concessimus,  salva  in  omnia  imperiali  justitia.  Unde  statuimus...ut 
nulla  persona... comes... bannum  quod  episcopus  in  civitate  posuerit  infringere  praesumat 
nee  in  homines  praefatae  ecclesiae  aliquam  exactionem  faciat,  nee  ad  judicium  illos 
trahat,  aut  in  hostem  ire  compellat.  Concessimus  insuper  eidem  episcopo  ut  civitatem 
claudat  et  munitionibus  circumdet  et  muniat...Soli  quoque  episcopo  liceat  ut  in 
hominibus  suis,  in  civitate  et  extra  positis,  justitiam  exerceat  et  eos  in  hostem  ire 
compellat,  et  debitum  ab  eis  servitium  requirat  et  accipiat."  The  prohibitions  here 
show  pretty  clearly  what  Humbert  claimed. 

'  Gallia  Christ,  xv.  319. 

^  Gallia  Christ.  XV.  319.  Still  more  concessions,  including  the  right  to  the  spolia, 
were  obtained  from  Count  Aymon  {id.  322). 

*  Cf.  Ricotti,  Storia  della  monarchia  piemontese,  I.  74. 

*  See  above,  p.  350. 

^  Besson,  Mt'moires,  etc.  (ed.  1871),  p.  360,  " Concedimus...bona  quoque  tam 
rerum  quam  possessionum  suarum,  sive  per  violentiam  aliquorum  eis  ablata  sive  per 
dispendium  retroacti  temporis  omissioni  involuta...recuperare...Inhibendum...duximus 


Possessions  in  Piedmont  427 

claim  over  the  Count  himself,  it  must  have  meant  at  least  a  claim  over 
those  vassals  of  the  county  who  had  transferred  their  allegiance  to  the 
Count  from  the  Archbishop  in  the  days  of  Humbert  II.  Thomas' 
power,  however,  probably  prevented  much  alteration,  although  he  could 
not  avoid  the  Archbishops  pursuing  a  foreign  policy  of  their  own. 

The  Savoyard  possessions  in  Italy  may  be  divided  into  two  portions, 
those  which  Humbert  III  transmitted  to  his  son  in  the  disasters  of 
1 184-7,  ^"d  those  which  formed  the  subject  of  Thomas'  conquests  and 
reclamations.  Under  the  first  category  fall  the  Valle  di  Susa,  and  the 
fief  held  from  the  Abbey  of  Pinerolo.  With  the  latter  went  the  rule  of 
the  httle  town  of  Miradolo,  which  was  in  demesne  and  under  a  castellan  \ 
Avigliana  was  probably  soon  recovered  and  rebuilt.  Roughly  speaking, 
the  result  of  Thomas'  many  wars  and  long  activity  was  to  add  the 
important  towns  and  castles  of  Vigone  and  Cavour  to  his  demesne", 
and  successfully  to  insist  on  the  homage  of  the  Piossasco,  the  Romagnano 
and  other  lords  of  ancient  Piedmont.  He  also  increased  the  number 
of  his  vassals  and  of  the  fiefs  they  held  from  him.  Carignano  ac- 
knowledged his  overlordship,  as  did  the  Marquess  of  Saluzzo  for  his 
northern  towns.  But  much  was  gained  only  to  be  lost,  like  Pinerolo  ; 
and  Turin  was  never  recovered  in  his  time.  Not  to  mention  his 
shadowy  suzerainty  over  the  Val  di  Stura  di  Ala,  his  most  northerly 
possessions  were  Rivalta  and  Collegno,  the  latter  being  only  a  temporary 
reconquest  from  the  Commune  of  Turing  His  neighbours  treated  the 
Po  as  his  southerly  frontier,  but,  even  in  the  original  Piedmont,  there 
must  have  been  many  gaps  and  enclaves  in  his  dominions*. 

I  have  already  dealt  with  the  general  character  of  Burgundian 
political  geography  under  Humbert  II's  rule^  Although  there  had 
been  a  general  advance  of  the  greater  seigneurs  since  then  and  a  growing 

ne  aliquis  eorum  qui  feuda  Munsteriensis  ecclesiae.-.tenent,  bonos  usus  feudorum  ab 
eis  substrahere,  nee  aliquatenus  minuere,  imo  nee  ipsa  feuda  et  bonos  usus  eorum  dis- 
simulare  vel  damnoso  silentio  supprimere  praesumant."  Cf.  the  similar  terms  in  Pope 
Alexander  Ill's  Bull  to  Aymon  II  in  March  1176  {Misc.  Valdost.,  B.S.S.S.  xvii. 
p.   94).     See  also  above,  p.   350,  n.  3. 

1  See  above,  pp.  336,  357. 

2  See  above,  pp.  385,  397,  and  415.  The  Count's  castellanus  of  Cavour  appears 
in,  e.g.,  Car.  Sup.  Lxxxvi.  {Cartario...di  Staffarda,  B.S.S.S.  XI.  p.  201).  I  may 
again  remind  the  reader  that  these  comital  castellans,  who  rule  the  Savoyard  demesne 
castles,  are  quite  different  in  all  but  name  from  the  Piedmontese  castellans,  i.e.  the 
lesser  feudatories,  like  the  Piossasco,  who  hold  some  castle,  with  perhaps  special 
rights;  cf.  above,  p.   259,  n.  4. 

'  See  above,  pp.  409,  415. 

*  e.g.  the  lands  of  the  Bishop  of  Turin  and  of  the  Abbey  and  town  of  Pinerolo. 
Further,  the  vassalage  of  the  Piedmontese  nobles  did  not  amount  to  much  at  this 
time. 

'  See  above,  pp.  267-9. 


428  Territories 

rigidity  in  their  dominion,  there  is  no  such  great  territorial  change  as 
would  need  special  mention.  What  should  be  emphasized  is  the  change 
in  the  character  of  the  greatest  seigneuries  themselves,  to  which  Savoy 
furnishes  the  only  exception.  First  there  was  a  tendency  to  a  common 
Languedoc  system.  An  Aragonese  Count  rules  in  Provence,  the 
Tolosan  line  acquires  the  Dauphine ;  but  then  there  comes  a  gradual 
alteration.  The  native  dynasts  begin  to  give  way  in  favour  of  foreigners. 
First,  and  quite  early,  the  German  line  of  Hohenstaufen  acquired 
Franche  Comte  from  the  native  dynasty.  This  was  followed  by  Henry  II 
of  England's  attempt  to  extend  the  dominions  of  the  Angevin  House 
towards  Italy.  Then  about  11 84  the  north- French  Capetian  Duke  of 
Burgundy  married  the  widowed  Dauphine  and  thus  introduced  for  the 
first  time  a  Languedoil  House  into  the  south.  Consequently  there 
appeared  a  faint  presentiment  of  the  future  of  the  south,  that  it  could 
form  no  exclusive  national  state,  but  was  destined  to  be  fought  for  by 
rival  influences.  In  the  sequel  the  kindred  north-French  competitor 
was  to  carry  the  day. 

One  would  like  to  be  able  to  point  out  in  the  House  of  Savoy 
a  consciousness  of  these  historic  necessities,  and  a  prevoyance  of  the 
destiny  of  their  race.  But  no  such  thing  is  visible.  They  were  French- 
Burgundian  princes,  with  an  extraordinarily  high  level  of  general  ability. 
They  knew  the  strategic  advantages  they  possessed  in  being  astride  of 
the  Alpine  range.  Like  other  great  feudalized  Counts,  they  maintained 
their  public  authority  and  built  up  a  small  state,  complete  in  itself. 
Their  permanent  aims  in  foreign  policy  are  perhaps  reducible  to  three 
which  lay  obviously  before  them.  First,  they  strove  to  maintain  a 
complete  independence  of  the  imperial  government.  Secondly,  they 
aspired  to  renew  the  mark  of  Turin,  of  which  they  claimed  to  be  the 
heirs.  Thirdly,  it  was  their  object  to  annex  the  small  feudal  fragments 
which  lay  round  them  in  Burgundy.  For  the  last  scheme  up  to  1189 
the  Viennois  and  the  Lyonnais  offered  the  most  promising  sphere. 
After  Thomas'  victories  and  the  extinction  of  the  House  of  Zahringen 
in  1 2 19,  the  lands  north  of  the  Lake  of  Geneva  also  lay  open  to  their 
ambition.  In  both  directions  they  obtained  a  large  measure  of  success. 
But  the  rise  of  the  Habsburgs  and  then  of  the  Swiss  Confederation 
checked  them  to  the  north,  as  did  the  extension  southward  of  the 
French  monarchy  to  the  west  and  south.  So  their  whole  attention 
eventually  devolved  on  Italy.  But  it  was  many  centuries  before  they 
realized  that  they  must  be  Italian  or  nothing. 


429 


Section  II.    The  Savoyard  government. 

The  internal  government  of  the  Savoyard  States  falls  naturally  into 
two  divisions,  that  exercised  by  the  Counts  and  their  officials,  and  that 
which  was  in  the  hands  of  nobles  and  towns.  With  the  first  division 
the  present  section  will  be  occupied. 

Although  long  association  under  the  Humbertine  dynasty  was 
beginning  to  weld  the  various  counties  and  franchises  of  Savoy  into  one 
State,  the  principal  nexus  between  the  several  portions  was  furnished  by 
the  Counts  themselves.  Like  all  other  medieval  princes  and  barons, 
they  passed  the  year  in  a  perpetual  peregrination  from  one  demesne  to 
another,  making  use  on  the  way  of  their  right  of  albergaria  both  from 
their  vassals  and  allodial  subjects.  They  proceeded  up  and  down  their 
isolated  mountain-valleys  from  Old-Chablais  to  Maurienne,  or  descended 
from  the  slopes  of  the  Alps  to  the  level  plains  of  Sermorens,  thus 
linking  together  provinces  of  different  dialects,  different  habits  of  life 
and  almost  different  climates.  In  the  course  of  their  progress  the 
castles  of  each  neighbourhood  were  surrendered  by  their  lords  to  be 
garrisoned  by  the  Count's  sergeants,  as  a  mark  of  feudal  duty  and 
a  practical  measure  for  the  security  of  the  suzerain  ^     In  this  way  the 

^  That  is,  the  castles  of  Savoyard  barons  were  reddibilia.  See  below,  p.  440,  and 
App.  of  Documents,  Nos.  vii.  and  viii.  I  may  here  give  a  list  of  the  places  where 
Humbert  HI  is  known  to  have  resided  :  (a)  Burgundy,  St  Maurice  (Car.  Reg.  cccill.), 
Chambery  {id.  cccv.),  and  Belley  (id.  CCCLVi.);  {b)  Italy,  S.  Ambrogio  (id.  cccxxxiv.) 
and  Susa  (id.  CCCXL.,  ccclviii.).  The  scantiness  of  the  list  is  due  to  the  fact  that  he 
seldom  gives  the  place  whence  his  documents  were  issued.  I  omit  those  residences 
which  lie  outside  Humbert  Ill's  own  dominion.  But  Oulx  (1151,  Car.  Reg.  cccv'ill., 
Carte... d'Oulx,  B.S.S.S.  XLV.,  134)  is  curious.  Had  Humbert  a  claim  there  in  his 
mother's  right  which  he  subsequently  lost  in  the  war  with  the  Dauphine?  Thomas, 
however,  most  usually  gives  the  place  of  his  residence,  and  the  list  of  those  in  his  own 
lands  gives  interesting  results,     (a)  In  Burgundy  9  documents  (Car.  Reg.  CCCLXX., 

CDIV.,  CDXVIIl.,  CDXXIX.,   CDLXV.,   CULXXII.,    CDLXXX.,   CDLXXXV.    and  Sup.    LXV.) 

are  dated  from  Aiguebelle ;  7  from  Chambery  (Reg.  ccCLXXXVi.,  CDVi.,  CDIX., 
DXXIX.,  Dxxx.,  DXXXI.,  Sup.  XLiv.)  ;  4  each  from  St  Maurice  (Reg.  ccclxxxix., 
CDXXil.,  CDLiii.,  Dxxvi.),  and  Aosta  (A'^^,^.  CDXiv.,  CDXXXVi.,  DVi.,  Dvii.);  3  from 
Villeneuve  by  Chillon  (Reg.  cdlxvi.,  dviii.,  uxviii.) ;  2  from  Thonon  (Reg.  CDViii., 
Sup.  XLI.) ;  and  one  each  from  Bagnes  (Vallais)  (Reg.  cdlxii.),  Belley  (Reg.  DXiv.), 
Burie  (Vaud)  (Reg.  cdlxi.),  Chillon  (AV^.  CDLXX.),  Conflens  (Reg.  cdlviii.),  Conthey 
(Vallais)  (Reg.  CDXLii.),  Corp  (?)  (Reg.  CUXL.),  Lugrins  (Chablais)  (Reg.  CDXXX.), 
Moudon  (Reg.  CULVi.),  Moutiers  (Reg.  culm.),  St  Jean-de-Maurienne  (AV^.  CDXIX.), 
St  Symphorien-d'Ozon  (Reg.  CULV.)  and  Villefranche  (Vallais  [?  =  Villeneuve])  (Reg. 
CDLXII.).  (b)  In  Italy  17  documents  date  from  Susa  (Reg.  CCLXXV.,  cccxcill., 
CCCXCIV.,  CDX.,  CDXXXV.,  CDXLIX.,  CULXIV.,  DXII.,  Sup.   XLII.,  XLVIII.,  LIV.,  LVII., 

LViii.,  LXi.,  LXiv.,  Lxviii.,  Lxxii.),  8  from  Avigliana  (AV^.  cuxLVii.,  cdli., 
CDXCViii.,  CDXCix.,  Dxi.,  DXix.,   Sup.  Lxii.,  LXiii.) ;    4  each  from  S.  Ambrogio 


430  The  Savoyard  government 

Counts  most  easily  made  use  of  the  produce  of  their  demesne-lands, 
maintained  their  authority  by  their  presence  with  a  competent  force, 
and  directed  a  scattered  administration,  which  must  have  depended 
largely  on  viva  voce  orders  and  reports.  It  must  be  remembered  that 
the  means  of  communication  even  within  one  province  were  bad  and 
the  habit  of  obedience  small.  Thus  to  the  economic  advantage  of  the 
travelling  court,  there  was  added  the  political  advantage  of  the  suzerain's 
presence,  and  that  of  his  household  knights  and  men-at-arms. 

Not  that  the  duties  of  administration  were  excessively  laborious. 
The  number  of  vassals,  who  possessed  the  entire  jurisdiction,  civil  and 
criminal,  over  their  domains  as  well  as  the  right  of  private  war,  was 
considerable.  Still  three  kinds  of  judicial  work  must  have  fallen  to  the 
Count. 

(i)  He  would  judge  in  cases  concerning  or  between  his  tenants-in- 
chief  ^ 

(ii)  To  him  fell  the  jurisdiction  not  included  in  the  privileges  of 
his  several  vassals.  This  competence  of  course  varied  according  to  the 
vassal  concerned.  Thus  in  the  case  of  the  Canons  of  Maurienne, 
homicide,  treason  and  trial  by  combat  were  reserved  to  the  Count  and 
the  Viscount".  Cases  from  the  fief  of  Ville  (Challant)  in  which  the 
lord  was  defendant,  were  likewise  reserved  for  the  Count's  Curia'. 

The  lesser  vassals  especially  had  often  quite  limited  powers,  and 
thus  more  fell  to  the  Count. 

(iii)  In  his  own  demesnes  and  over  the  royal  roads  to  the  passes 
the  Count  possessed  the  entire  jurisdiction,  with  often  some  definite 
rights  allotted  to  the  Viscounts,  in  whose  sphere  of  competence  the 
demesnes  fell'*. 

(iv)  Perhaps  we  should  add,  already  in  Humbert  Ill's  time,  the 
extra,  quasi-royal  rights  of  concurrent  jurisdiction  in  the  baronial 
domains  and  of  appellate  jurisdiction  derived  from  the  power  of  granting 


{Reg.  CDXii.,  CDxxiii.,  Sup.  XLiii.,  L.)and  Rivalta  {Reg.  cccxci.,  Sup.  XLV.,  XLVi., 
XLVii.),  3  from  Vigone  {Reg.  CDLXXVli.,  cdlxxxviii.,  dxxii.),  and  one  each  from 
Cavour  {Sup.  Lxxix.),  Miradolo  {Reg.  cccxcv.)  and  S.  Giorio  (Val  di  Susa)  {Reg. 
CDLXXXix.).  Thus  we  see  how  really  descriptive  are  the  titles  of  Count  of  Maurienne 
or  Savoy  (proper),  and  of  Marquess  in  Italy. 

^  See  above,  pp.  299-300. 

-  Car.  Reg.  ccCLXXXViil.  (Billiet  at  Albrieux,  Chartes  de  Maurienne,  p.  44) : 
' '  Canonici  nichil  esse  retentum  preter  homicidia  et  prodiciones  et  duellos . . . proferebant." 
The  Count  {1195)  decided  for  them  against  his  mestrals  and  the  Viscount.  On  the 
latter,  cf.  below,  pp.  440-5. 

*  See  App.  of  Documents,  No.  i. 

*  See  the  rights  of  the  Viscounts,  below,  pp.  440-5.  For  the  royal  roads,  cf. 
Cibrario,  Delle  Finanze,  ecc.  Mem.  Accad.  Tor.  xxxvi.  p.  85.  The  lords  of  Cly 
and  Chatillon  possessed  the  excheytae  cavtini,  profits  of  the  road  in  their  lands. 


Jurisdiction  and  revenue  431 

protection.     The  first  at  any  rate  is  supported  by  the  express  denial  of 
it  in  Frederick  Barbarossa's  diploma  to  the  Bishop  of  Belley^ 

More  immediately  important,  however,  were  the  financial  rights 
of  the  Count.  Besides  profits  on  jurisdiction  and  feudal  incidents'^,  he 
had  three  main  sources  of  public  revenue,  the  tolls,  the  mint,  and  the 
receptu7n  comtiale^.  The  latter  appears  to  have  been  a  commuted  right 
of  albergaria^,  and  was  perhaps  more  especially  paid  by  lesser  vassals, 
who  could  not  easily  entertain  the  Count,  and  whom  the  Count  would 
not  often  visit  conveniently.  The  mints  in  the  time  of  Humbert  III 
and  Thomas  were  two,  the  older  at  Susa  for  Italy  and  the  younger 
at  St  Maurice  for  Burgundy^  It  went  of  course  with  the  ownership  of 
certain  silver  mines ^  The  right  to  levy  tolls  was  perhaps  the  most 
lucrative  of  the  regalia  possessed  by  the  Counts.     Of  them  the  chief 


^  See  above,  p.  426,  n.  2.  Further  evidence  (1198)  is  provided  by  the  arrange- 
ments concerning  the  Val  de  Bagnes  between  the  Count  and  the  Abbot  of  St  Maurice 
(Car.  Reg.  cccxcvi.,  Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  no) :  "  Ecclesia  S.  Mauricii  a  ponte 
S.  Pancratii  usque  ad  finem  vallis  que  dicitur  Baignes  bannos  et  justicias..  possidebat... 
Quando  comes  presens  est  justicias  clamorum  que  coram  se  levantur  levat."  The 
same  arrangements  are  described  more  at  length  in  Car.  Reg.  CDXxiv.  The  appellate 
jurisdiction  of  the  Count  certainly  existed  in  the  fourteenth  century  (Cibrario,  Delle 
Finanze  ecc.  Mem.  Accad.  Tor.  xxxvi.  p.  85) :  and  the  fact  that  the  appellant  in  the 
Val  d'Aosta  had  the  choice  of  appealing  to  the  Count  in  the  Assises  gM^rales 
(see  below,  p.  438,  n.  9)  instead  of  the  new  artificial  Councils  of  the  Count,  shows 
I  think  the  probable  antiquity  of  the  right. 

''■  Among  these,  if  they  were  not  rather  usurped  regalia,  was  the  right  to  the 
inheritance  of  intestates  and  to  the  wardship  of  widows  and  orphans.  Both  must 
have  been  excessively  oppressive,  to  judge  from  the  eagerness  the  towns  showed  to 
abolish  them  (see  below,  p.  448). 

^  Cf.  above,  pp.  310,  nn.  1  and  5,  318,  n.  3.  The  "receptus  de  Baines  et 
Octeat,  X.  scilicet  libras"  of  Car.  Reg.  cccill.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  64)  are 
described  in  Car.  Reg.  cccxcvi.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  no)  as  "illas  x.  libras 
quas  comes  nomine  procurationis...habebat  "  and  in  Car.  Reg.  CDXXIV.  (the  same  as 
Car.  Reg.  CDLXil.,  M.H.P.  Chart.  I.  1258)  as  "collecta  autunni,"  the  Abbot  taking 
the  "collecta  de  Mayo."  The  text,  however,  in  M.H.P.  i.  omits  the  " collecta  de 
Mayo"  altogether. 

*  Yet  some  of  the  albergariae  would  still  be  exacted,  especially  the  avenagium  and 
fenatagium.  Thus  Thomas  reserves  his  right  to  exact  hay  and  straw  from  the  men  of 
the  Priory  of  Innimont  (Car.  Reg.  cnv.).  But  chiefly  purveyance  seems  to  have 
remained,  the  charters  prescribing  40  days  as  the  date  within  which  payment  should 
be  made  {id.  and  of  the  town-charters,  above,  p.  305  and  below,  p.  448). 

*  See  Cibrario,  Storia  della  Monarchia,  I.  209-10,  and  A.  Perrin,  Le  Monnayage 
en  Savoie,  Mim.  Sac.  Sav.  d'Hisl.  et  d' Arch.  xiil.  p.  41.  The  Bishop  of  Sion's 
consent  "was  necessary  to  the  validity  of  the  St  Maurice  money."  The  monela 
Mauritiensis  is  referred  to  in  the  undated  (?  1 162-3;  see  above,  p.  328)  Car.  Reg. 
cccxxi.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,   Doc.  p.  72).     Thus  each  great  road  had  its  mint. 

«  These  existed,  e.g.  near  Aiguebelle  and  Aosta  (Car.  Reg.  cccx.).  See  Cibrario, 
Delle  Finanze  ecc,  Mem.  Accad.  Tor.  xxxvi.  (1833),  pp.  202-21. 


432  The  Savoyard  government 

was  the  toll  over  the  Mont  Cenis^  It  appears  that  Italians  did  not  pay 
it  when  leaving  Italy,  and  that  they  paid  half  of  it  only  on  returning"^ ; 
but  doubtless  this  provision  only  increased  the  traffic*.  Other  regalia 
were  also  profitable,  owing  to  the  fees.  Such  was  the  right  to  the  forest 
and  pasture  lands,  which  stretched  long  and  wide  throughout  Savoy. 
It  was  a  great  privilege  to  a  monastic  house  to  be  given  free  right  of 
pasture  over  a  greater  or  smaller  district ^  Further,  the  Count  had  the 
right  of  tallaging  his  demesne-tenants  and  dependents  in  the  towns  not 
being  knights.  In  Aosta  city  the  oppressive  right  of  arbitrary  tallage, 
which  was  abused  probably  by  Humbert  III,  was  given  up  by  Count 
Thomas  in  return  for  a  fixed  house-tax,  which  probably  represented  the 
tallage  usually  paid  for  protection  ^  Here  the  Bishop  of  Aosta  had 
a  right  to  a  third  of  the  tallages  and  profits ^  Apparently  in  the  Val  de 
Bagnes,  the  Count  and  the  Abbot  of  St  Maurice  halved  such  tallages  ^ 

^  Car.  Reg.  cccii.,  cccLVill.,  Sup.  xxxvii.  See  Cibrario,  Delle  Finanze  della 
Monorchia  di  Savoia,  Mem.  Accad.  Tor.  Ser.  I.  xxxvi.  pp.  175-90.  It  was  called 
the  Dazio  di  Susa.     Part  was  paid  in  kiod,  e.g.  pepper. 

-  Car.  Reg.  cccxxxii.  {M.H.P.  Leges,  i.  7):  "  fuit  omnibus  Italicis  datum  ut 
nullum  transitum  hue  veniendo  reddant,  in  rediundo  mediam  partem  transitus. " 
Cf.  the  pleasant  story  of  the  toll  told  by  Matt.   Paris  (above,  p.  419). 

^  To  the  tolls  proper  {pedagia)  there  should  be  added  the  octroi  and  market-dues 
of  all  kinds  {theloneum,  etc. ). 

*  Car.  Reg.  cccil.  {M.D.R.  xil.  5),  CCCXLII.,  and  Guigues,  Notice  sur  la 
Chartreuse  cTArviere,  p.  63.  This  right  of  pasturing  sheep  throughout  his  land  was 
granted  by  Humbert  III  to  his  only  foundation,  the  Chartreuse  of  Aillon  in  Savoy 
(Car.  Reg.  CCCXLII.,  Guichenon,  Freuves,  p.  43).  Thomas  made  the  same  grant 
to  his  favourite  Chartreuse  of  Monte  Benedetto  in  the  Val  di  Susa  (Car.  Sup.  Llll.). 
Another  due  of  this  kind  came  from  the  hunting-right  "de  venatione'';  Car.  Reg. 
CCCLXXXVli.   (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.   loi). 

^  Car.  Reg.  ccCLXXViii.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  82).  "Visis  et  cognitis 
calamitatibus  et  eciam  oppressionibus  et  injuriis  illatis  trado  civitatem  Auguste  cum 
suburbiis.-.libertati  ita  quod  nunquam  deinceps  ego  vel  successores  mei  tailias  vel 
exactiones  invitas  per  me  vel  per  mistrales  meos  faciam...Praeterea  omnes  habitatores 
...consiituunt  reddere  annuatim  comiti,  episcopo  Augustensi  et  successoribus  eorum 
XII.  denarios  pro  qualibet  extensa  brachiorum  domus  suc.exceptis  domibus  clericorum 
et  militum  et  religiosorum. "  In  the  same  way  in  the  lands  of  Innimont  Thomas 
substituted  a  fixed  and  graduated  hearth-tax  (Car.  Reg.  CDV.),  as  he  also  did  at 
Miradolo  (see  below,  pp.  447-8). 

®  Car.  Reg.  CCCLXXIX.,  CCCLXXX.  :  "  terciam  partem  tallearum  et  exactionum  que 
in  ipsa  urbe  et  suburbio  fiebant  ad  episcopum  ex  antiqua  consuetudine  pertinere."  The 
ancient  custom  is  testified  to  by  Pope  Eugenius  in  1151  [M.H.F.  Chart,  i.  795). 
See  above,  p.  90. 

■^  Car.  Reg.  CDXXiv.  (  =  Car.  Reg.  cdlxxii.,  M.H.F.  Chart,  i.  1258),  dated  1219. 
The  exaction  had  to  be  made  by  common  consent  of  Count  and  Abbot.  But  was  it 
an  old  custom?  The  Count  also  received  there  twelve  modii  of  corn  and  27  solidi  for 
carnagium  (is  this  flesh  food,  or  is  caruagium  to  be  read  ?),  apparently  as  the  ancient 
royal  census  or  land-tax.  (Cf.  Mayer,  Deut.  u.  Franz.  Verfassutigsgeschichte, 
I.   28—32). 


Mestrals  433 

With  all  this  Humbert  gives  us  the  impression  of  being  constantly  in 
money  difficulties.  Besides  the  mortgage  to  St  Maurice  and  the  treaty 
with  Henry  H,  he  compounds  his  dispute  with  Hautecombe  monastery 
for  none  too  large  a  sum,  a  fact  which  suggests  poverty  on  his  part^ 
Thomas,  too,  in  his  later  years  finds  it  hard  to  meet  his  obligations,  but 
this  is  merely  due  to  his  continual  wars.  There  is  no  sign  of  impecuniosity 
early  in  his  reign,  and  the  rapid  growth  of  the  Lombard  and  especially 
the  Astigian  trade  in  his  time  must  have  made  him  almost  wealthy. 

When  we  further  inquire  by  what  local  officials  these  numerous  and 
extensive,  if  piecemeal,  rights  and  duties  were  exacted  and  performed, 
we  find  the  contemporary  sources  of  the  twelfth  century  vague  and 
scanty.  The  earlier  nomenclature  of  the  various  officials,  also,  differs 
from  that  used  later,  which  makes  identification  less  certain.  However, 
we  shall  hardly  be  wrong  in  saying  that  the  chief  local  officials  were 
then  and  under  Count  Thomas  the  mestrals  and  the  castellans.  The 
mestrals,  that  is,  those  niinisteriales  or  members  of  the  Count's  house- 
hold who  were  employed  locally,  play  later  quite  a  humble  role^,  nor 
can  they  ever  have  had  the  importance  of  the  castellans.  I  imagine 
that  they  are  the /ra^/*?.;/// mentioned  by  Amadeus  HP,  unless  the  latter 
are  mere  village-headmen.  Both  the  antiquity  of  the  office  and  its 
former  importance  are  proved  by  the  fact  that  it  is  found  enfeoffed 
sometimes  in  the  thirteenth  century  to  the  greatest  barons  of  Savoy. 
As  hereditary  mestralsies  I  have  come  across  those  of  Aosta,  held 
by  the  Viscounts'*,  of  Tarentaise,  held  by  the  Viscounts  \  of  the  Val 
de  Miolans,  held  by  the  Sires  de  Miolans^  and  of  Novalaise,  held 
by  the  Sires  de  Gerbaix^  Apparently  unhereditary  are  those  of 
Chambery,  held  in  1232  by  Guigues  de  Chevelu*,  and  of  Chambuerc, 

^  See  Car.  Reg.  CCCXLI.  (Guichenon,  Preuves,  p.  42)  (1170).  100  solidi  were 
given. 

^  Cf.  Stat.  Arnadei,  viii.  Bk.  II.  (ed.  1504,  p.  33).  Their  duties  in  the  Dauphine 
are  given  by  Valbonnais,  Histoire  de  Dauphine,  I.  107- 11.  See  also  Cibrario,  Delle 
Finanze  della  Monarchia  di  Savoia,  Mem.  Accad.  Torino,  xxxvi.  p.  69.  And 
cf.  Wurstemberger,  op.  cit.  ill.   163-5. 

*  See  above,  p.  303.  Guigues  de  Chevellud,  the  niestral  of  Chambery  in  1232 
(Car.  Reg.  Dxxx.),  is  in  the  same  year  called  villicus  of  Chambery  (Car.  Reg.  Dxxix., 
AIi>m.  Acad.  Savoie,  Ser.  in.  T.  I.  p.  557).  This  is  pretty  decisive  as  to  the  general 
character  of  his  functions. 

*  Car.  Reg.  dclxxxvii.  (1242)  (see  text  in  App.  of  Docs.).  Cf.  Menabrea,  Les 
Oi-igines  fiodales,  p.  416. 

•'  See  below,  p.  441  and  No.  xi.  in  App.  of  Docs. 

^  Menabrea,  op.  cit.  p.  548. 

^  Car.  Reg.  DCLIII. 

8  Car.  Reg.  Dxxx.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  126).  The  document  shows  the 
Count  possessed  rights  over  Chambery,  where  he  often  resided,  e.g.  albergaria 
(cf.  p.  429,  n.   I  above),  before  his  purchase  of  it  from  the  Viscount. 

P.  O.  28 


434  The  Savoyard  government 

near  Yenned  The  district  of  the  mestral,  it  will  be  noticed,  is  often 
quite  small.  As  to  the  functions  of  the  mestral  in  these  times,  a 
recognition  concerning  the  mestralsy  of  Chambuerc  in  1209  gives 
a  picture  of  them.  It  was  his  office  to  gather  in  the  Count's  dues  in 
kind,  and  to  levy  judicial  fines  from  the  comital  placita.  It  was 
also  his  business  to  allot  the  Count's  demesne-land  in  the  mestralsy 
to  farmers,  but  the  Count  was  not  bound  to  confirm  his  choice. 
Besides  a  commission  on  the  judicial  fines  he  levied,  he  had  all  the 
banfia  of  five  solidi  and  less.  I  take  it  he  held  a  small  court  for  this 
kind  of  business.  The  last  point  is  confirmed  by  a  sale  of  the  mestralsy 
of  Novalaise  by  Guigues  de  Gerbaix  to  Amadeus  V  in  1291-.  Here 
Guigues'  rights  of  jurisdiction  are  carefully  preserved,  and  those  the 
Count  acquired  are  defined.  Evidently,  there  was  a  danger  lest  the 
jurisdiction  Guigues  had  over  his  personal  vassals  and  lands  should  be 
confused  with  that  he  had  possessed  over  the  district  as  mestraF. 
Further,  the  mestral  levied  the  Count's  tallages  and  feudal  incidents. 
In  fact  when  the  mestral  was  a  great  hereditary  official,  like  the 
Viscounts  of  Aosta  and  Tarentaise,  and  his  mestralsy  extended  over  the 
greater  part  of  a  county,  it  is  clear  that  his  opportunities  of  extortion 
would  be  great,  and  that  concessions  by  the  Count  of  a  fixed  census  in 
lieu  of  arbitrary  levies  would  be  a  restraint  more  on  his  greedy  vassals 
than  on  his  own  authority*. 

^  Car.  Reg.  CDXXV.  (Cibrario,  Delle  finanze  della  monarchia  di  Savoia,  Mem. 
Accad.  Torino,  xxxvi.  (1835)  p.  272).  "  Banni  v.  solidorum  et  infra  ministrialium 
sint...De  magnis  placitis  debent  levare  ad  opus  comitis  bona  fide,  postea  comitisse, 
deinde  vicecomitis,  demum  placitum  suum,  non  tamen  secundum  tertiam  vel  quartam 
partem,  sed  rationabiliter  et  mensurate.  Terram  comitis  debent  dare  in  alberiamentum 
et  postea  ipsi  ostendere,  sed  si  comiti  placuerit,  alberiamentum  licet  mutare."  See 
below,  p.  44O,  n.  6.  Carutti's  identification  of  Chambuerc  with  Chambery  is  clearly 
wrong. 

2  The  document  (Car.  Reg.  DCLiil.)  has  date  1201,  which  Carutti  corrects  to  1241. 
But  the  contents,  Indiction  iv.  and  Count's  name,  best  suit  1291  under  Amadeus  V, 
who  also  bought  up  the  mestralsy  of  Aosta. 

•*  Car.  Reg.  DCLiil.  " Guigo  de  Gerbasio...vendit...mistraliam  de  Novalesia  cum 
omnibus  juribus...Pacto  conventum  est  quod  Guigo  ejusque  heredes  habeant  merum  et 
mixtum  imperium  et  omnimodam  jurisdictionem  in  hominibus  uti  nunc  habet...Item 
(Guigo)  habebit  plenam  jurisdictionem  inferiorem  in  parrochiis  de  Gerbays  etc.,  comes 
vero  habebit  merum  et  mixtum  imperium  et  universalem  jurisdictionem  in  parrochiis 
de  Gresivo  etc."  (From  Carutti's  abstract,  not  original  text.)  Cf.  Wurstemberger, 
op.  cit.  III.  164-5.  Other  evidence  for  the  mestrals'  powers  of  police  and  jurisdiction 
is  furnished  by  Humbert's  quarrel  with  St  Anthelm  of  Belley  (see  above,  p.  330),  and 
by  a  clause  in  Thomas'  charter  to  Chambery  (see  below,  p.  451)  :  "  De  offensis  vero 
de  quibus  clamor  domino  vel  mistrali  factus  non  fuerit  etc.,"  but  here,  as  the  Count 
had  not  bought  the  castle,  there  was  probably  no  castellan. 

*  See  above,  pp.  359-60  and  below,  p.  441,  n.  3.  As  mestral  the  Viscount  of 
Tarentaise  levied  the  tallia  casamenti  (see  No.  xi.  App.  of  Docs.).     In  this  case  the 


Castellans  and  great  officers  435 

Above  the  mestrals,  as  administrators  of  the  comital  demesnes  and 
local  functions,  came  the  castellans.  One  of  these  officials,  who  were 
never  in  Burgundy  hereditary,  was  placed  over  each  demesne-castle  of 
Savoy :  and  no  doubt  even  in  Humbert  Ill's  time,  as  later,  supervised 
the  mestrals  near  it  and  exercised  a  higher  jurisdiction.  Exactly  what 
castles  were  in  demesne  at  this  time  is  hard  to  say  with  completeness. 
In  Italy  under  Count  Thomas  there  were  five,  at  Susa,  at  Miradolo, 
Avigliana,  Vigone  and  Cavour^ ;  in  Burgundy  we  find  proof  of  castellans 
at  Virieu-le-Grand^  and  Chillon^,  under  Humbert  III,  and  further  of 
Cornillon^  Rossillon^  Feterne'^,  Allinges''  and  Montmelian^  under 
Thomas.  Of  course  there  were  a  number  of  others,  probably  at  castles 
Hke  Pierrechatel,  Le  Bourget,  Aiguebelle  and  Bocsozel,  or  at  Saillon, 
Thomas'  most  recent  acquisition.     But  they  are  not  recorded^. 

Besides  these  regular  local  officials,  there  were  also  employed  from 
time  to  time  extraordinary  representatives  of  the  Counts,  presumably 
with  full  powers  ^'^.  It  seems  Hkely  that  the  Bailiffs,  among  whom  the 
Savoyard  lands  were  divided  by  Peter  II,  drew  their  origin  from  these 
nuncii  or  missi. 

All  these  officials  were  ministenales — although  the  mestrals  specially 
appropriated  the  name — that  is  members  of  the  Count's  household  and 
his  dependents.  At  their  head  in  the  entourage  of  the  Count  himself 
stood  officials  of  a  wider  authority,  the  most  important  of  whom  were 
the  chaplain,  the  chancellor,  the  seneschal  and  the  marshal.  The 
Count's  chaplain  must  always  have  been  a  person  of  importance,  but 
there  is  no  sign  that  Raynald  and  Richard*^,  who  appear  under 
Humbert  III,  or  Albert,  who  officiated  under  Thomas ^^,  exercised  any 

Viscount  enfeoffed  part  of  the  viscounty  and  the  mestralsy  to  a  local  noble,  de  Mascot 
(?'<f.),  who,  when  his  overlord  sold  his  rights  to  the  Count,  became  a  direct  vassal  of 
the  latter  for  his  offices  (Nos.  xii.  and  xiii.,  App.  of  Docs.).  Cf.  below,  pp.  443-4. 
^  See  e.g.  Car.  Sup.  xxxvii.  {Cartario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  Ii.  p.  69),  LXi.,  and 
above,  p.  385. 

*  See  above,  p.  303. 

^  Car.  Reg.  cccil.  i^M.D.R.  xil.  p.  5). 

•*  Car.  Reg.  CCCLXXXVI.  '  Car.  Reg.  CDV. 

*  Car.  Reg.  CDViii.  and  CDXXII.  '  Car.  Reg.  CDViil. 
®  Car.  Reg.  CDXXI. 

^  Q.\\iX2L.x\o-,  Delle finanze  della  monarchia  di  Savoia,  Mem.  Accad.  Torino,  xxxvu. 
(1835),  p.  99,  gives  a  list  of  the  Castellaniae  in  1325.  There  was  a  Castellan  of 
Saillon  in  1233  (Car.  Reg.  DXL.). 

1"  I  only  know  of  four  examples,  one  of  missi  of  Humbert  III  in  Turin  in  1176 
(see  above,  p.  336,  n.  4),  two  of  nuncii  at  Aosta  under  Thomas,  where  they  act  for 
the  Count  in  his  absence  (Car.  Reg.  ccCLXXvm.,  Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  82; 
Reg.  CDLVi.,  Misc.  stor.  ital.  xxill.,  p.  283),  and  one  of  an  "  officialis...specialiter 
missus"  at  Innimont  {Reg.  CDV.). 

'^  Car.  Reg.  cccxxiii.,  Sup.  xxxvii. 

1-  e.g.  Car.  Reg.  cccxciv.  and  cccLxxxv. 

28—2 


436  The  Savoyard  government 

special  influence.  Raynald  may  have  been  selected  as  Bishop  of  Belley 
after  the  death  of  the  truculent  St  Anthelm^  The  appointment  of 
a  chancellor  was  an  innovation  and  shows  both  the  increase  of  secretarial 
business  at  the  Count's  court  and  the  increasing  claims  of  Humbert  III. 
He  appears  after  the  introduction  of  a  seal  by  Amadeus  HI.  Richard^ 
who  holds  the  office  in  1150  and  11 73,  and  Guy  in  1227^  are  only 
known  by  name.  At  first,  under  Humbert  HI,  the  great  office  of 
seneschal  seems  to  be  held  by  Humbert  de  Cevins*;  later  Peter  de 
Boges  has  it® ;  five  of  Thomas'  seneschals  are  named®.  Presumably 
they  exercised  some  control  over  the  demesne,  as  well  as  a  section 
of  the  household.  An  hereditary  marshal — Geoffrey — who  commanded 
the  feudal  array  appears  early  in  Count  Thomas'  time.  So  that  it  is 
possible  the  office  was  already  in  existence  under  Humbert  IIV. 
Further  Humbert  HI  perhaps  already  possessed  a  chamberlain,  that  is, 
in  Savoy,  a  treasurer.  At  any  rate,  the  most  constant  attendant  on  both 
Humbert  HI  and  his  son  is  a  noble  of  Avigliana,  Peter  di  Tovet^  who 
is  probably  two  persons,  father  and  son,  and  the  latter's  descendants 
claim  an  hereditary  chamberlainship,  with  the  keepership  of  the  Count's 
privy  seal,  in  the  thirteenth  century^  Finally  a  butler  is  once  mentioned 
under  Thomas^". 

^  But  the  Bishop  was  a  Carthusian,  perhaps  after  his  chaplainship.  See  Gallia 
Christ.  XV.  619. 

2  Car.  Reg.  CCCIII.,  cccxliii.  {Gesta  Regis  Henrici,  I.  37  fif.). 

3  Car.  Reg.  Dvii. 

■*  Car.  Reg.  CCCII.,  cccvi.  {M.D.R.  Xli.  pp.  5  and  142),  if  I  am  right  in  reading 
Ciums,  Ciuns  as  Civins,  and  considering  his  office  dapifer  more  than  local. 

*  Car.  Reg.  CCCXL. ;  here  I  identify  Bogisius  with  the  de  Boges  of  Amadeus  III. 
See  above,  p.  307. 

^  W^  in  1 191  (Car.  Sup.  XLII.),  David  de  la  Chambre  in  1209  {Reg.  CDXXiil.), 
William  in  1215  {Reg.  CDXLV.),  Pierre  d'AUinge  in  1217  {Reg.  cdliii.)  and  1223 
{Reg.  CDLXXii.),  and  Rabusta  in  1231  {Reg.  Dxxvi.). 

7  See  de  Mareschal  de  Luciane,  Le  Premier  Mareschal  de  Savoie,  Misc.  stor.  ital. 
xxvi.  pp.  435-56.     Geoffrey's  first  appearance  is  in  1194  (Car.  Sup.  XLlil.). 

8  Car.  Reg.  cccii.,  ccciii.,  cccvi.,  cccviii.,  cccix.,  cccx.,  cccxxxiv.,  cccxl., 
CCCXLVI.  He  seals  two  grants  in  1150  (cccii.,  cccvi.) :  and  is  probably  the  Petrus 
de  Bovet  Castellanus  who  came  to  Henry  II  of  England  in  1 172  (CCCXLVI.,  see  above, 

p.  338). 

^  See  Claretta,  Sulle  liberalita  compiute  dagli  Aviglianesi  de  Thoet,  ciambellani  e 
guardasigilli  dei  primi  conti  di  Savoia,  Atti  Accad.  Sc.  Torino,  xvii.  (1882).  The 
second  Peter  di  Tovet  is  probably  the  Petrus  de  Thovenco  (1209,  Car.  Reg.  CDXXiii.) 
and  Petrus  de  Toreto  (1219,  Car.  Reg.  CDLXi.),  chamberlains  of  Count  Thomas. 
But  in  1 194  a  Venecius  seems  to  be  chamberlain  (Car.  Sup.  XLiii.),  vifhich  would 
make  it  unlikely  that  the  office  was  then  hereditary.  The  second  Peter  di  Tovet 
may  at  one  time  have  been  Castellan  of  Susa  (cf.  Car.  Sup.  LXi.  — Collegno,  op.  cit.. 
Doc.  XXXV.;  and  Reg.  CDXLVIII.,  Carte  del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  Xli.  2,  p.  275,  and 
Reg.  CDXLix.). 

"  Car.  Reg.  cccxciv. 


Councillors  437 

The  mention  of  that  Peter  di  Tovet,  who  was  clearly  the  chief 
adviser  of  Humbert  down  to  11 70  at  all  events,  leads  naturally  to  the 
enumeration  of  Humbert's  other  trusted  councillors,  besides  the  officials 
treated  of  above.  Only  two  are  apparent  from  the  documents.  One  is 
Ponce  de  Conflens^  who  is  once  or  twice  described  as  minister^;  and 
perhaps  held  some  special  office  of  that  name^  The  other  is  Aymon 
de  Rumilly^ 

With  regard  to  Count  Thomas  it  is  hard  to  say  in  what  vassals  he 
put  special  trust,  after  the  great  officers  of  his  court.  This  is  not  due 
to  the  scantiness,  but  to  the  number  and  completeness  of  the  attesta- 
tions of  his  barons  on  his  charters.  It  is  clear  that  the  great  nobles  of 
his  Burgundian  dominions  accepted  his  leadership  whole-heartedly. 
The  de  Miolans,  de  la  Chambre,  de  Briangon,  de  Seyssel,  the  d'Amey- 
sins  and  their  like  are  among  his  constant  companions.  The  only 
exception  is  furnished  by  the  Aostans  who  as  usual  are  rarely  met  with 
outside  their  native  valley,  and  it  is  there  we  know  the  Count's  authority 
was  least.  Thomas'  personality,  one  would  presume,  was  the  main 
source  of  this  steady  loyalty  of  the  great  lords,  although  the  increase 
of  his  wealth  and  power  through  the  Mont  Cenis  trade  must  not  be 
disregarded. 

A  striking  fact  concerning  the  officials  I  have  been  recording  is 
their  apparently  high  rank.  It  does  not  appear  that  in  Savoy  the 
ministeriales  of  the  Count's  Curia  were  sharply  divided  from  \}i\Q.  proceres^ 
that  is  the  barons  whose  council  and  services  were  due  by  their  oath  of 
fealty^  The  two,  however,  are  separately  mentioned  in  1150  as  forming 
together  the  Count's  Curia**.  In  the  Curia,  and  by  the  advice  and  with 
the  consent  of  its  members,  the  Count  transacted  the  business  of  the 
state,  judicial  and  administrative ^     All  tenants-in-chief  would  belong 

'  Car.  Reg.  cccii.,  cccvi.,  cccxLi.,  cccxLVi.,  Sup.  xxxvii. 

2  Car.  Reg.  cccii.,  cccvi.  (both  c.  1150). 

^  Cf.  above,  p.  303  (Petrus  minister). 

^  Car.  Reg.  cccviii.,  cccx.,  cccxxili. 

'  See  above,  pp.  300,  302-3. 

*  Car.  Reg.  cccill.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  64) :  "Affuerunt  et  de  curia  nostra 
nobiles  et  probi  viri  et  familiares  nostri  quorum  consilio,  que  tractanda  erant,  tractare 
disponebam." 

'  Thus  Thomas  in  1196  decides  a  case  as  to  the  rights  of  the  Chartreuse  of  Losa 
"ex  decreto  curie  nostre"  (Car.  Sup.  XLIV.;  CoUegno,  op.  cit..  Doc.  xi.) ;  and  during 
his  minority,  15  June  1189,  a  grant  is  made  to  Losa  "[consilio  et  aucto]ritate  curie... 
Thome  comitis"  (Car.  Sup.  XL.;  Collegno,  op.  cit..  Doc.  i.  and  Cartario  di  Pitierolo, 
B.S.S.S.  II.  p.  78).  Unfortunately  the  charter  is  damaged,  and  some  of  the  phrases 
and  names  lost.  In  an  abstract  the  "  tota  curia"  is  said  to  consist  of  thirty-five 
"  prelati  et  barones  et  excellentes  viri."  In  like  manner  the  ca.ses  from  Ville  (Challant), 
in  which  the  lord  was  defendant,  were  reserved  for  the  Count's  Curia  (see  App.  of 
Doc,  No.  I.). 


438  The  Savoyard  government 

to  it.  They  are  the  barones^,  optimates"^,  proceres^,  capitanei^ ;  and  with 
them  sat  the  principal  ministeriales,  who  also  owed  strict  fealty  to  the 
Count,  although  perhaps  their  status  had  originally  been  nearer  to 
that  of  serfs  than  of  tenants-in-chivalry*.  But  here  a  peculiarity  of 
Savoyard  history  manifests  itself.  The  several  counties  had  not  yet 
coalesced  into  a  single  state  ;  they  were  separated  by  lofty  mountains, 
and  their  inhabitants  were  therefore  very  diverse  among  themselves. 
Add  to  this  the  land  was  poor,  and  in  consequence  the  nobles  were 
much  tied  down  to  their  localities.  Hence  the  composition  of  the 
Count's  Curia  changed  as  he  moved.  Save  for  a  few  great  nobles, 
councillors  and  mintsteriales,  it  assumed  usually  a  local  complexion, 
although  on  great  occasions  it  is  clear  that  it  was  drawn  from  all  parts®. 
In  Chablais  he  is  surrounded  by  Chablesian  barons'  :  in  Val  d'Aosta 
he  acts  on  the  advice  of  Valdostansl  In  this  localization  of  the  Curia, 
we  may,  I  think,  trace  the  origin  of  the  local  Estates  which  appear  in 
the  thirteenth  century.  They  would  thus  be  a  special  development  or 
offshoot  of  the  Curia  which  the  Count  convened  in  his  several  counties, 
for  holding  placita,  receiving  homage  and  transacting  other  business®. 

^  Car.  Heg.  CCCLVII.  (1179);  cf.  Car.  Reg.  CCCLXXII.  (1189)  "concilio...baronum," 
and  CCCLXXViii.  (1191?)  "consilio...baronum  meorum." 

^  Car.  Reg.  cccxxxiv.  {1167)  "in  presencia...plurium  optimatum  curie  mee." 
^  See  above,  p.  302. 

*  Car.  Reg.  cccx.  (1150?),  "majores  viri  et  capitanei  Augustanae  vallis." 

'  The  same  people  are  doubtless  referred  to  in  Car.  Reg.  ccxcviil.  (Cibrario  e 
Promis,  Doc.  p.  67),  "  inito  consilio  cum  suis."  For  the  position  of  the  barones  or 
optimates  and  the  ministeriales,  see  Mayer,  Deut.  11.  Franz.  Verfassungsgeschichte,  II. 
pp.  121-50  and  176-7,  189-203. 

*  See  above,  p.  301,  n.  i. 

^  See  Car.  Reg.  cccii.,  ccciii.,  cccvi.,  cccxxi.,  cccxLi.,  cccLVil. 
8  See  Car.  Reg.  cccx.;  cf.  ccclxxviii.  (c.  1191). 

*  There  are  traces  of  the  process  in  the  conservative  Val  d'Aosta.  Besides  the  local 
States,  there  were  held  at  least  once  in  seven  years  the  Assises  ginirales  by  the  Duke 
in  person.  He  took  the  oath  to  respect  the  local  privileges  and  then  held  a  full  curia, 
where  the  barons  did  homage,  where  the  valley's  statutes  were  confirmed,  and  he 
adjudged  civil  and  criminal  causes  with  the  aid  of  his  barons,  after-vassals  and 
notables.  (See  Sclopis,  Considerazioni . . .intorno  alle  antiche  asseviblee  ecc,  M.H.P. 
Comitiorum  II.  c.  187-90.)  In  Car.  Reg.  ccclxxviii.,  the  financial  rights  and  duties 
of  Aosta  city  are  clearly  decided  at  such  an  assise  g^n^rale,  and  it  was  the  necessary 
consent  to  tallages,  I  imagine,  which  gave  birth  to  special  meetings  of  an  enlarged 
curia,  i.e.  the  States.  Imitation  of  Estates  abroad  would  be  another  factor.  That  the 
Assises  g^nirales,  if  not  the  regularity  of  their  occurrence,  were  of  a  much  older  date 
than  the  description  of  them  under  the  Dukes  of  Savoy,  is  shown  by  a  reference  to 
Count  Edward's  holding  them  in  1326:  "qui  in  Vallem  Augustam  intraverat  pro 
tenenda  et  reddenda  justicia  ;...castra  Vallis  Auguste  sunt  reddibilia  comiti  Sabaudie 
quociens  comes  Sabaudie  intrat  Vallem  Auguste  pro  justicia  tenenda  et  reddenda." 
(Conti  Castell.  Bard.  Rot.  xiv.,  Eporediensia,  B.S.S.S.  iv.  p.  288.)  We  have  an 
abstract  of  the  proceedings  in  March  1337  under  Count  Aymon  [M.ff.P,  Com.  i. 


Classes  in  Savoy.     Nobles  439 

Even  a  participation  of  the  citizens  is  faintly  foreshadowed  under 
Humbert  III,  for  in  1170  he  makes  a  grant  to  the  Canons  of  Oulx 
with  the  consent  of  the  Susians\  It  is  true  that,  as  the  subject  of  the 
grant  lay  in  Susa,  this  may  be  more  a  communal  phenomenon  than  a 
state  one,  but  the  two  processes  are  not  always  easy  to  divide  and  have 
an  interrelation. 


Section  III.    Vassals  and  towns. 

We  have  seen  that  Humbert  III  divides  his  Curia  into  three  classes, 
nobiles,  probi  viri  and  familiares'^.  It  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  a 
definite  distinction  of  status  is  intended.  The  same  division  is  evidently 
before  us  in  a  document  of  1167,  where  Humbert  divides  his  subjects 
into  milites,  burgenses,  dientes  and  villani^.  One  class,  the  villani,  who 
would  not  of  course  be  members  of  the  Curia,  is  added ;  but  the  others 
must  roughly  correspond.  Thus  we  have  the  nobles,  or  members  of 
knightly  families,  i.e.  the  tenants-in-chivalry  ;  the  plain  freemen,  chiefly 
townsmen ;  those  numerous  members  of  the  households  of  the  Count 
and  his  barons  who  were,  strictly  speaking,  unfree  in  status,  an  im- 
portant class  with  important  parts  to  play ;  and  the  rustic  tillers  of  the 
soil,  who  we  may  presume  were  mainly  unfree  in  their  condition,  serfs 
in  short,  both  by  descent  and  tenured 

The  first  class  of  these  subjects,  that  of  the  nobles  or  tenants-in- 
chivalry,  was  divided  in  the  fifteenth  century  into  Barons,  Bannerets 
and  Vassals,  according  to  the  extent  of  their  domains  and  powers  and 
their  immediate  dependence  or  not  from  the  Duke^    But  in  the  twelfth 

37  ff.) :  "  In  civitati  Augustensi  viz.  in  aula  superiori  domus  episcopalis  ante  ecclesiam 
cathedralem  fuit  prima  die  qua  illustris  vir  dominus  Aymo  Comes  Sabaudie  tenuit 
ibidem  sedem  suam  pro  jure  reddendo  et  faciendo  secundum  consuetudinem  Vallis 
Auguste.     Et  ibidem  comparuerunt  assistente  Domino  nobiles  pares  terre  etc." 

^  See  below,  p.  449. 

-  See  above,  p.  437,  n.  6. 

^  Car.  Keg.  CCCX.XXIV.  {Carte... d' Oulx,  B.S.S.S.  XLV.  p.  156)  :  "universis  milli- 
tibus,  burgensibus,  clientibus,  villanis  et  (h)omnibus  hominibus  qui  sunt  vel  fuerint  in 
terra  sua."  Cf.  the  "forensecos  milites,  clientes  et  rusticos"  in  the  Val  d'Aosta  under 
Count  Thomas  (see  above,  p.  378,  n.  2). 

■*  I  only  give  the  above  statement  of  the  preponderance  of  the  unfree  as  a  guess. 
In  the  charter  to  Montm^lian  town  in  1233  (Car.  Keg.  dxlii.,  Mem.  de  la  Soc.  Sav. 
d'' Hist,  et  d^ Arch.  II.  p.  237),  there  is  the  not  unusual  prescription  that  serfs  may  not 
settle  there  without  their  lords"  consent,  but  if  they  do  60  unclaimed  for  a  year  and  a 
day,  they  become  townsmen.     Cf.  Wurstemberger,  op.  cit.  HI.  pp.  270-6. 

*  See  Kicotti,  Storia  delta  tnonarchia  piemontese,  I.  61-3.  But  Amadeus  VIII 
(Stat.  Lib.  V.  ed.  1505,  pp.  76-7  and  80-1)  mentions  only  Barons,  Bannerets  and 
Valvasbors,  the  latter  being  subdivided  into  knights  and  squires. 


440  Vassals  and  towns 

century  these  divisions  among  the  Count's  Barons  had  hardly  arisen. 
The  distinction  in  those  days  was  between  the  immediate  vassals  of 
Count  and  Bishop,  the  real  barons  \  and  the  remaining  mediate  or 
partly  mediate  feudalists  who  owed  fealty  to  other  lords  either  wholly 
or  in  part.  Yet  the  distinction  must  have  been  somewhat  obscured  by 
the  fact  that  the  great  families  did  not  wholly  break  up ;  each  remained 
grouped  as  an  auberge  or  hospice,  all  the  junior  members  of  which  would 
probably  be  vassals  of  its  head-.  When  we  come  to  later  times  we  find 
the  greater  number  of  the  immediate  vassals  exercising  complete  juris- 
diction within  their  lands^  Their  castles  were  generally  reddibilia,  i.e. 
were  garrisoned  by  the  Count,  when  he  was  in  their  neighbourhood  ^ 
As  a  matter  of  principle,  all  nobles,  as  well  as  ecclesiastics,  were  tax- 
free  ;  they  only  paid  the  feudal  aids,  and  were  subject  to  feudal 
incidents,  no  small  burden  after  all\ 

The  leaders  of  the  great  nobles  were  beyond  question  the  Viscounts^ 

^  No  doubt  these  are  the  "  Majores  viri  et  capitanei "  of  Car.  Reg.  cccx.  (see 
above,  p.  438,  n.  4).  Later  they  would  form  the  Pares  of  the  later  Coiitumier 
(see  Sclopis,  Considerazioni  ecc,  M.H.P.  Comit.  11.  187-90),  while  the  other  nobles 
were  the  Imparls.  In  contradistinction  to  the  hnparh  the  Paris  in  the  fourteenth 
century  were  obliged  to  be  homines  ligii  of  the  Count,  and  reserve  that  homage  in 
any  homage  they  might  do  to  other  lords.  See  M.H.P.  Com.  i.  38  (1337):  "  Re- 
cognitum  fuit  ibidem  concorditer  per  pares  predictos  quod  omnes  nobiles  predicti 
quotquot  sunt  de  genere  parium  dicte  terre,  sunt  et  esse  debent  homines  ligii  domini 
comitis,  nee  possunt  vel  debent  alicui  alteri  de  mondo  homagium  facere  nisi  salvo  et 
excepto  prius  et  pocius  homagio  et  lidelitate  domini  comitis  supradicti." 

^  See  App.  of  Docs.,  Nos.  xi.  and  viii.  In  the  latter  the  abolition  of  the  vice- 
comital  payments  for  the  whole  house  of  Challant  by  its  head  Ebal  shows  some  sort 
of  common  family  action,  but  Nos.  v.  and  vi.  prove  that  the  juniors  held  direct  from 
the  Count.  Probably  any  homage  they  might  owe  to  Ebal  would  be  only  subsidiary. 
There  is  a  most  interesting  list  of  the  great  vassals  in  the  treaty  of  11 73  (see  above, 
P-  339)-  I  n^^y  riots  that  we  should  correct  Chinis  into  Chinins  (i.e.  Chignin),  and 
Frabriciis  into  Fabriciis  (i.e.  Fa  verges).  Also  the  Christian  name  Engwicio  should 
be  Enguiro  (Car.  Reg.  cccxxxi.)  or  Enguirano  (cccxLl.) ;  it  is  Engiierrand.  Most 
of  the  names  reappear  in  Thomas'  charters. 

^  Ricotti,  loc.  cit.,  MenaVjrea,  op.  cit.  pp.  487-8  ;  and  App.  of  Docs.,  No.  xiv. 
Cf.  the  recognitions  of  the  lords  of  Cly  and  Chatillon  in  i^So  (App.  of  Docs.,  Nos.  v. 
and  VI.).     They  even  held  the  excheytae  camini,  the  jurisdiction  over  the  road. 

■*  See  App.  of  Docs.,  Nos.  vii.  and  i. 

*  Cf.  Cibrario,  Delia  Finanze  della  Alonarchia,  Mem.  Accad.  Sc.  Torino,  Ser.  i. 
T.  XXXVI.  p.  86,  and  Mayer,  Deut.  u.  Franz.  Verfassungsgeschichte,  p.  347.  See  for 
instance  the  mutagium  (relief)  payable  by  the  Viscounts  of  Aosta  (App.  of  Docs., 
Nos.  II.,  III.,  IV.,  V.  and  vi.)  and  de  Miolans  (id.  ix.  and  x.).  For  the  meaning  of 
"de  placito,"  cf.  Car.  Reg.  CDLXXviii.  (M.D.R.  xix.  241).  There  is  also  the  tallia 
casamenti  in  Tarentaise  (App.  of  Docs.  xi.).  But  I  imagine  that  casamentum  here  is 
not  an  ordinary  fief.  (Cf.  Du  Cange,  ed.  Favre,  sub  voce.)  The  tallia  in  this  case 
was  clearly  a  regular  tax. 

®  Four  of  them,  those  of  Chambery,  La  Chambre,  Novalaise  and  Aosta  are  absent 
from  the  list  of  guarantors  in  the  treaty  of  1 1 73.     The  reason  probably  is  that  they 


The  Viscounts  441 

Their  existence  can  be  traced  in  every  Burgundian  county  of  the  Hum- 
bertines  save  those  of  Old-  and  New-Chablais,  and  from  several 
documents^  we  can  get  a  clear  notion  of  their  functions.  The  antiquity 
of  the  latter  is  shown  not  only  by  their  similarity  in  the  different 
provinces,  but  also  by  the  fact  that  they  extended  over  all  the  lands  in 
the  county  the  Viscounts  belonged  to,  whether  the  latter's  own  or 
others'  fiefs  or  the  Count's  demesne.  They  were  in  fact  survivals  from 
sub-CaroHngian  times,  and  unsuccessful  competitors  of  the  Count's 
themselves  in  the  transmission  and  exercise  of  the  public  powers. 

The  typical  duty  of  the  Viscountship  was  to  assist  the  Count  in  his 
judicial  duties,  to  be  his  lieutenant  in  the  pubHc  placita,  to  receive 
sums  paid  as  bail,  to  guard  prisoners,  to  levy  fines  and  to  execute  the 
sentence  of  the  courts  For  this  service  the  Viscount  received  usually 
one-third  of  the  various  civil  profits  of  the  county ^  He  might,  how- 
ever, extend  his  duties  by  holding  the  hereditary  mestralsy  of  his 
province.  In  this  case  he  levied  also  the  Count's  dues,  judicial  and 
non-judicial,  and  was  duly  compensated  for  his  labour  by  a  certain 
share  in  the  other  payments  ^     It  is  not  easy  now,  and  was  not  in  the 

had  actually  to  do  homage  to  John  and  Alice  at  once  (above,  pp.  340-1).  The 
Viscount  of  Aosta  was  lord  of  Chatillon.  Certain  Chablesian  barons,  d'AUinge,  de 
Feteme  and  de  Blonay  are  also  absent ;  but  I  cannot  suggest  a  reason.  Berlio 
de  Chamboc,  the  negotiator  of  1173,  might  be  Berlio  de  Chambery ;  but  Berlio  and 
Torencus  de  Chambel  among  the  guarantors  are,  I  think,  lords  of  Chambuerc  or 
Chambut.  Berlio  de  Chambut  or  Chambuerc  appears  in  1 195  (Car.  Heg.  cccLXXXVi.) 
and  1209  (Car.  Reg.  CDXXV.,  Cibrario,  Mem.  Accad.  Sc.  Torino,  xxxill.  p.  272). 
Jocelin  de  Chambuerc  appears  in  1231  (Car.  Reg.  Dxxvi. ;  M.D.R.  xxix.  296)  and 
1232  (Car.  Reg.  Dxxxi.;  Mem.  Accad.  Sc.  Torino,  xxxiv.  p.  93).  The  modern  form 
of  the  name  is  Chambuet,  near  Yenne.  Cf.  the  mestralsy  above,  pp.  433-4.  (The 
conclusions  of  this  note  were  reached  by  me  before  seeing  Mugnier  on  Les  Sires 
de  Chambery,  M^m.  Soc.  Sav.  d' Hist,  et  d'Arch.  XL.  (1901)  p.  cxxi.) 

^  See  App.  of  Docs.,  Nos.  111.,  iv.  and  viii.  for  Aosta,  and  xi.  for  Tarentaise  ; 
and  Cibrario,  Delle  Finanze  ecc,  Mem.  Accad.  Sc.  Torino,  xxxvi.  p.  114  for  Mau- 
rienne  in  1309.  There  are  also  inquisitions  on  the  viscounty  of  Maurienne  in  private 
archives,  quoted  by  A.  de  Foras,  Armorial. ..de  Savoie,  i.  pp.  no,  351-9. 

-  App.  of  Docs.,  Nos.  vni.  and  xi.,  and  Cibrario,  loc.  cit. 

3  The  method  of  remuneration,  however,  varied.  The  Viscount  of  Tarentaise 
took  one-third  of  all  civil  profits  (see  specially  the  evidence  of  Hugh  de  Mascot),  and 
1 1  denarii  annually  from  most  mansi  on  the  Count's  demesne  (the  lands  of  the  Lady 
of  Faucigny  being  comital  demssne).  He  also  held  the  avenagium  diXid  fenatagittm 
by  special  grant,  it  seems  ;  and  was  mestral,  with  fees,  for  the  regular  tallages.  The 
Viscount  of  Maurienne  in  1309  took  one-third  of  judicial  profits  only.  The  Viscount 
of  Aosta  took  all  judicial  profits  of  60  solidi  and  under,  and  one-fifth  of  those  above 
60  solidi  and  all  concerning  adultery  and  seduction,  as  well  as  the  assetamenta,  or 
securities  given. 

*  Thus  the  Viscount  of  Tarentaise  levied  the  regular  tallages  ;  the  Viscount  of 
Aosta  furnished  the  implements  on  the  Count's  table  in  Aosta  and  was  responsible 
for  the  dues  of  the  Arimanni,  i.e.  the  old  military  tenants  bound  to  the  soil.     The 


442  Vassals  and  towns 

thirteenth  century,  to  distinguish  between  the  duties  of  Viscount  and 
Mestral,  when  they  were  thus  combined.  A  military  official  the  Vis- 
count does  not  seem  to  have  been^  And  the  rights  of  inquisition  and 
judgement  in  the  Count's  placita  for  the  most  part  remained  solely  with 
the  Count  or  his  special  officials'^. 

The  Viscount,  in  our  period,  might  however  have  special  rights  of 
jurisdiction  over  at  least  some  lands  which  were  either  in  the  comital 
demesne,  or  which  were  not  held  by  their  possessors  with  full  criminal 
and  civil  powers.  In  the  Val  d'Aosta,  where  the  Count  was  an  absentee, 
the  Viscounts  appear  to  have  exercised  some  such  prerogatives ^  Further 
evidence  is  provided  by  the  complaints  of  the  Canons  of  Maurienne 
with  regard  to  the  lands  which  had  been  given  them  by  Humbert 
Whitehands  and  Bishop  Theobald  at  and  near  Cuines  in  Maurienne  ^ 
In  1 195  it  was  decided  by  Count  Thomas  that  only  matters  of  homicide, 
feudal  treason  and  trial  by  combat  were  reserved  to  his  officials^,  among 
whom  no  doubt  was  the  Viscount.  The  latter's  claims  continued  how- 
ever— he  was  also  lord  of  Cuines  castle,  as  a  vassal  of  the  Count  ^ — and 
after  a  second  attempt  at  a  settlement  in  1233',  matters  were  again 
arranged  in  1252.     By  this  last  award,  in  which  the  Bishop,  too,  was 


Viscount  of  Aosta  took  the  chej-curia  (?  what)  of  the  city,  and  a  share  of  the  Count's 
vineyards,  perhaps  for  his  mestralsy,  besides  fees.  Hugh  de  Mascot,  as  mestral  of 
the  Viscount,  took  the  market-payments  of  5  solidi  and  under,  and  the  13th  denarius 
in  those  above  that  sum,  and  had  one  burgess  at  choice  to  squeeze  in  the  tallage 
of  Aime. 

^  The  Viscount  of  Tarentaise  has  no  part  in  the  "banna  pro  cavalcatis...Comitis," 
nor  do  military  duties,  save  for  the  Viscount's  own  fiefs,  appear  in  Aosta  and 
Maurienne. 

^  They  are  not  mentioned  as  Viscount's  rights  in  Tarentaise  (App.  of  Docs., 
No.  XI.),  and  are  expressly  reserved  to  the  Count  in  Maurienne  in  1309,  which  may 
however  be  a  new  provision. 

'  App.  of  Docs.,  Nos.  III.  (only  partial,  where  Nus  and  Montjovet  are  fiefs  of 
other  barons),  and  iv.  and  viii.  (where  it  is  over  all  the  valley). 

*  See  the  grants.  Car.  Reg.  cxxxii.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  95),  cxxxiil. 
(pp.  cit.,  Rapporto,  p.  (15)),  CCXLV.  (Billiet  et  Albrieux,  Charles. ..de  Maurienne, 
Doc.  Acad.  Savoie,  II.  p.  20),  and  CCCLXXII.  (id.  p.  38).  I  suspect  that  one  or  two 
documents,  emanating  perhaps  from  Humbert  II  and  Humbert  III,  are  lost  (cf.  Obit. 
S.  Joann.  Maur.  (Billiet  et  Albrieux,  op.  cit.  pp.  340  and  350)). 

*  Car.  Reg.  CCCLXXXVIII.  (Billiet  et  Albrieux,  op.  cit.  p.  44).  The  lands  referred 
to  (see  Car.  Reg.  CCCLXXii.)  are  Cuines,  St  Remy,  Les  Villards  above  Cuines,  etc. 
Cf.  p.  430,  n.  2. 

^  App.  of  Docs.,  No.  XVI.;  in  1279  the  Viscount  does  homage  to  the  Count  for 
Cuines  (Arch,  di  Stato,  Turin,  Prov.  de  Maurienne,  Paq.  I.  Cuines  No.  i).  The 
vassalage  of  the  de  la  Chambre  to  the  de  Miolans  for  St  Etienne  de  Cuines  (Doc. 
No.  IX.)  is  a  separate  matter. 

7  Car.  Reg.  DXLV.  (Billiet  et  Albrieux,  op.  cit.  p.  69).  The  same  claims  and 
awards  are  made. 


The  Viscounts  443 

concerned,  the  Viscount  secured  the  five  royal  banna  in  the  district,  i.e. 
the  superior  criminal  jurisdiction  \ 

This  viscounty  of  Maurienne,  as  held  by  the  de  la  Chambre,  also 
furnishes  an  instance  of  an  interesting  Savoyard  phenomenon,  the  sub- 
enfeoffment  of  that  office.  For  the  tenant-in-chief  of  the  whole  viscounty 
was  the  Sire  de  Miolans.  The  latter  however  only  exercised  his  office 
over  the  district  round  Aiguebelle,  and  sub-enfeoffed  the  exercise  of  the 
remainder  from  Epierre  to  the  Alps  to  his  vassal,  the  lord  of  La 
Chambre'^.  Doubtless  we  here  have  a  clue  to  the  viscounty  of 
Novalaise,  which  was  held  under  Count  Thomas  and  long  after  by  the 
Sires  de  Seyssel.  It  consisted  apparently  of  Petit  Bugey  south  of  the 
Rhone  and  extended  over  the  later  castellatiiae  of  Yenne  and  Chanazl 
But  who  the  Viscounts  of  Belley  county  were,  who  thus  sub-enfeoffed 
part  of  their  office  and  presumably  became  themselves  early  extinct, 
does  not  transpire. 

Of  the  Viscounts  of  Savoy  proper,  the  lords,  that  is,  of  Chambery, 
there  seems  little  trace  in  their  official  capacity.  Berlio  de  Chambery 
surrendered  his  rights  as  Viscount  in  Chambery  town  to  the  Count,  but 
retained  them  elsewhere  ^ 

On  the  other  hand  the  rights  of  the  Viscounts  of  Tarentaise,  the 
Sires  de  Briangon,  were  fortunately  made  the  subject  of  a  comital 
inquisition  in  1276®,  and  from  that  document  we  learn  that  from  the 
cliff  of  Saxum®  near  Moutiers  upwards  to  the  main  ridge  of  the  Alps 

'  Car.  Reg.  dccclxxxi.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  183).  Cf.  Menabrea,  op.  cit. 
p.  400.  It  concerns  Tigny,  St  Remy,  Cuines  and  Les  Villards.  The  award  runs 
"quod...Petrus  de  Camera... habeat  et  percipiat  cum  cause  cognitione  prius  habita  v. 
banna  regalia  viz  proditionis,  sanguinis  effusionis  facte  cum  gladio,  furti,  perjurii, 
adulterii... various  feudal  dues...et  vicecomitatum... scilicet  quod  consuevit  levare  et 
habere  in  aliis  hominibus  vicecomitatus  Mauriannensis."  The  vicecomitatus  is  the  third 
of  judicial  fines.  The  controversy  continued  under  Amadeus  V  (Cibrario  e  Promis, 
Doc.  p.  250). 

2  Nantelm  de  Miolans  is  already  styled  Vicecomes  in  1189  (Car.  Sup.  XL.; 
Cartario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  II.  p.  78).  For  his  suzerainty  over  the  La  Chambre 
etc.  see  App.  of  Docs.,  Nos.  ix.  and  x.  It  has  been  somewhat  obscured  in  Wurstem- 
berger's  abstract  of  x.  (iv.  p.  439)  and  in  Menabrea,  of.  cit.  p.  ■;45.  For  the  extent 
of  the  viscounty  of  the  de  la  Chambre,  see  App.  of  Docs.,  Nos.  ix.  and  x.  Later  it 
only  consisted  of  the  18  parishes  east  of  St  Jean-de-Maurienne  (see  de  Yoxics,,  Armorial 
...de  Savoie,  I.  359).     For  the  authenticity  of  the  Docs.,  see  note  in  the  Appendix. 

^  See  App.  of  Docs.,  No.  xiv.  Pierre  de  Seyssel,  Viscount  of  Novalaise,  appears 
in  1209  (Car.  Keg.  CDXXV. ;  see  above,  p.  434,  n.  1). 

■•  See  below,  p.  451.  In  1295  Francis  de  la  Rochette  and  his  wife  sold  to  Count 
Amadeus  V  the  viscounty  of  the  "  mandement"  of  Chambery,  together  with  the  castle 
(see  Dufour,  Docs,  inedits  relatifs  li  la  Savoie,  No.  x.x.xii.  (J/t'm.  Soc.  Sav.  d'' Hist,  et 
d^Arch.  v.  (1861),  p.  337).  '  App.  of  Docs.,  No.  xi. 

'  I  identify  Saxum  with  the  rock  on  which  the  castle  of  St  Jacques  stands  or  stood 
(cf.  Menabrea,  Les  Origines fiodales,  p.  41 1). 


444  Vassals  and  towns 

the  viscounty  was  sub-enfeoffed  to  the  lords  of  Macot,  who  continued  to 
retain  it  as  tenants-in-chief  for  some  time  after  the  Brian9on  had  sold 
their  own  rights. 

In  fact  in  the  thirteenth  century  the  great  viscountships  must  have 
been  a  source  of  danger  and  annoyance  to  the  Counts.  Almost  all  the 
comital  public  functions  were  performed  with  them  or  through  them. 
They  were  rivals  throughout  the  county ;  and  cannot  have  been  easy  to 
supervise  or  control.  The  consequence  was  that  the  Counts  became 
eager  to  buy  out  the  holders  of  these  troublesome  public  rights  by  the 
gift  of  fiefs  of  the  ordinary  local  kind,  which  had  no  part  in  their  own 
administration.  The  viscounty  of  Aiguebelle  soon  disappears,  leaving 
that  of  Maurienne  a  direct  fief  of  the  Count.  In  1279  the  de  Briangon 
in  like  manner  surrendered  their  viscounty  and  mestralsy^,  although 
those  of  Upper  Tarentaise  remained  to  1294,  when  the  de  Mascot,  too, 
renounced  the  office^  Lastly  in  1295  the  de  Challant  exchanged  for 
the  castle  of  Montjovet  their  viscounty,  visdomnate  and  mestralsy  of 
Aosta*;  and  the  Counts  were  at  last  enabled  to  rule  the  valley  and 
control  their  own  rights  and  revenues  without  the  continual  inter- 
vention of  their  over-powerful  vassals. 

The  power  of  the  Sires  de  Chatillon  was  the  governing  factor  in  the 
Val  d'Aosta  under  Count  Thomas.  The  absenteeism  of  the  Counts 
had  led  to  a  remarkable  independence  of  the  greater  nobles,  the  pares 
or  majores  viri  et  capitanei  of  the  valley,  and  the  Viscount  was  their 
unquestioned  head.  He  could  pursue  wars  with  Ivrea  with  no  relation 
to  his  suzerain's  policy  ^  To  his  wide  domains,  over  which  his  rights 
were  thorough-going,  he  united  the  three  offices  of  Viscount,  Vidame 
and  Mestral  of  Aosta.  Thus  he  represented  the  Count  and  perhaps 
the  Bishop  also.  Not  many  functions  seem  left  to  the  Count,  when 
the  jurisdictions  of  the  great  nobles  are  deducted.  His  authority,  how- 
ever, was  conserved  by  the  division  of  interests  that  existed  between  the 
pares  and  all  the  other  free  inhabitants  of  the  valley.  The  grievances 
of  the  townsmen  of  Aosta,  which  resulted  in  their  first  charter^,  were 
mainly  due  to  the  hereditary  mestral,  I  imagine.  And  it  seems  from 
the  sequel  that  he  and  the  other  barons  were  even  more  oppressive  in 
the  countryside''. 

These  oppressive  claims  of  the  Savoyard  barons,  which  were  at  their 
worst  in  the  Val  d'Aosta,  may,  I  think,  be  pretty  well  inferred  from  the 

1  App.  of  Docs.,  No.  XII. 

2  App.  of  Docs.,  No.  XIII. 

3  App.  of  Docs.,  No.  VIII.  They  had  been  pawned  for  a  while  to  Count  Peter  II 
in  1263  (Wurstemberger,  iv.  p.  309). 

^  See  above,  p.  410,  n.  i. 
'  See  above,  pp.  359-60. 
®  See  above,  p.  378,  n.  2. 


Baronial  Rights.     Ecclesiastic  vassals  445 

document^  already  mentioned  concerning  the  dispute  between  Pierre 
de  la  Chambre  and  the  Canons  of  Maurienne,  for  the  former  seems  to 
have  construed  his  vicecomital  rights  as  giving  him  full  baronial  powers 
over  the  villages  in  question.  Besides  seizing  on  the  entire  jurisdiction, 
he  exacted  the  full  servile  dues  and  opera  in  villeinage,  he  levied  a 
tallage  two  years  running  and  he  compelled  the  tenants  to  arm  them- 
selves and  serve  in  his  cavalcatae'^  probably  for  a  private  war.  In  spite 
of  the  somewhat  later  date  of  this  testimony,  it  probably  answers  well 
enough  to  the  state  of  things  under  Humbert  III  and  his  son.  The 
feudal  claims  would  grow  lighter  rather  than  heavier  as  the  Count's 
power  increased,  especially  as  the  opportunity  the  barons  had  of  exer- 
cising their  right  of  private  war  was  limited^. 

Deducting  the  doubtful  subjects  of  the  Count,  such  as  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Tarentaise,  the  Bishop  of  Maurienne  was  his  principal 
ecclesiastical  vassal.  He  held  a  considerable  territory  with  full  juris- 
diction stretching  from  his  episcopal  city  of  St  Jean  towards  the  Alps*. 
Next  to  him  came  the  Bishop  of  Aosta,  who  seems  to  have  made  a  vain 
attempt  for  an  imperial  investiture ^  The  chief  Abbots  mainly  held 
allodial  lands,  which,  save  in  Chablais  perhaps,  do  not  seem  exceedingly 
extensive  in  Humbert's  days :  and  St  Maurice  occupied  a  peculiar 
position.  To  the  Cistercians  it  seems  that  wide  seigneurial  rights  were 
seldom  given  at  first®.  On  the  other  hand  the  Hospital  of  S.  Antonio 
di  Ranverso  was  not  only  made  toll-  and  octroi-free,  but  was  also  given 
complete  jurisdiction  over  the  lands  it  might  acquire  in  a  rather  narrow 
vicinity, and  further  the  judicial  profits  over  its  "men"  throughout  Savoy". 

1  Car.  Reg.  DCCCLXXXI.  (see  above,  p.  443,  n.  i). 

2  Car.  Reg.  dccclxxxi.  :  "  Petrus  de  Camera  injuste  percepit...paleas,  fenum, 
trainas  lignorum,  tellas,  secatores  ad  prata  sua  secunda  et  etiam  cogunt  homines 
jamdictos  habentes  boves  ad  veniendum  cum  bobus  suis  ad  arandas  terras  suas...per- 
cepit  etiam... banna,  justicias  ad  i|>sum  capitulum...pertinentes...et  facit...predictos 
homines  venire  ad  litigandum  coram  se...et  cogit...emere  arma  et  venire  in  caval- 
catas  suas...et... fecit  taham  anno  preterito  et  presenti  in  hominibus  capituli."  Peter's 
defence  was,  this  had  been  done  for  thirty-five  years,  which  carries  back  the  customs 
to  12 1 7.  On  the  rights  of  the  case,  we  must  remember  that  Pierre,  besides  his 
viscounty,  was  lord  of  Cuines  and  St  Remy  (App.  of  Docs.,  No.  ix.). 

'  Cf.  on  these  baronial  rights  Wurstemberger,  op.  cit.  in.  226-30,  and  Cihrario, 
Delle  Fhianze  ecc.  I.,  Mem.  Accad.  Tor.  xxxvi.  pp.  84-6. 

*  Menabrea,  Les  Origines  fiodales,  pp.  239-4 1. 

''  Bishop  Walpert  was  at  the  imperial  court  at  Pavia  in  1186  during  Humbert's 
war  with  the  Emperor,  a  sure  sign  of  his  disloyalty  to  the  Count.  But  no  investiture- 
diploma  seems  to  have  been  obtained.  ProV)ably  his  attitude  had  something  to  do 
with  citizen-discontent  at  Aosta  (cf.  above,  p.  359).  The  V'al  de  Cogne  formed  the 
chief  part  of  the  Bishop's  demesne. 

*  Cf.  above,  pp.  293-7. 

^  Car.  Reg.  cccLvni.  (Cibrario,  Opcrette  varie  (ed.  1880),  p.  429).  "Done... 
omnia  mea  jura  quae  possideo  in  omnem  terram  que  est  infra  viam  quae  venit  de 


44^  Vassals  and  towns 

When  we  come  to  the  remaining  three  classes,  there  is  not  much  to 
say  about  the  dientes  and  the  rustici.  The  former,  who  should  be 
vassals  of  unfree  status,  would  furnish  originally  the  CounHs  familiar es'^. 
They  appear  between  knights  and  villeins  in  the  Val  d'Aosta  and 
ought  there  I  think  to  be  identified  with  the  old  class  of  arimatini'^,  or 
at  least  to  include  that  body,  who  were  bound  to  the  land.  As  we 
should  expect  they  form  the  bulk  of  the  men-at-arms  supplied  by  the 
Count's  demesne-lands.  We  might  almost  say  that  the  inhabitants  of 
the  demesne-towns  of  Chambery  and  Montmelian  were  dientes  from  a 
military  point  of  view^  Perhaps  another  trace  of  them  is  to  be  found 
in  the  tallia  casamenti  levied  by  the  Count  in  Tarentaise  about  the  year 
1276,  since  ordinary  tenants-in-chivalry  would  be  unlikely  to  be  taxed 
beyond  the  feudal  incidents  and  penalties.  Thus  the  dientes  would 
properly  hold  casamenta,  not  feoda.  But  their  position  here  as  else- 
where must  have  been  more  and  more  assimilated  to  that  of  the  quite 
free  vassals  ^ 

With  regard  to  the  rustid,  definite  material  is  not  to  hand  in  large 
quantity.  Their  typical  holding  was  of  course  the  niansus.  There  are 
one  or  two  fragments  of  monastic  extenta  which  do  not  define  the 
status  of  the  7/iansio?iarii,  whether  free  or  unfree,  but  they  give  their 
dues^  The  recognition  of  the  mestral  of  Chambuerc  gives  further 
information  on  that  point**,  but  the  most  general  description  is  afforded 

Taurine  et  Duriam  a  Rivo  Enverso  usque  Avillianam  si  eamdem  terrain  potuerint 
acquirere — Dono  etiam...omne  pedagium  et  usagium  de  suis  propriis  rebus  et  leydam 
et  omne  bannum  et  forum  de  suis  propriis  hominibus  in  omni  terra  mea."  Is  forum 
here  the  market-law  profits? 

^  See  above,  p.  439. 

-  Cf.  Wurstemberger,  op.  ci(.  in.  pp.  ■222-30  and  238,  n.  21,  who  also  states  that 
the  Arimanni  were  transferred  with  the  land  they  owned,  and  gives  a  list  of  the 
dependents  on  the  land — Arimanni,  Ligii  primi,  Ligii  secundi,  Commendaticii  and 
Albergati.  I  gather  from  Mayer,  Deut.  u.  Franz.  Verfassungsgeschichte,  11.  11 5-8, 
that  the  ligii,  or  perhaps  only  the  ligii  primi,  would  be  unfree  men-at-arms.  In  that 
case,  perhaps  the  commendaticii  were  free  peasants  and  the  albergati  unfree  peasants 
{  =  cas<Ui?  Cf.  Mayer,  li.  18-20).  According  to  Mayer,  Italienische  Verfassungs- 
geschichte, I.  p.  70,  the  Lombard  arimanniae  were  frequently  inalienable,  which 
accounts  for  the  transfer  of  aritnanni  with  their  land. 

*  See  the  charter  to  Chambery  (Car.  Reg.  Dxxx.,  Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  126): 
"Quando  autem  dominus  exercitum  faciet,  de  singulis  domibus  unus  eum  sequi 
teneatur — Si  dominus  de  villa  quantitatem  clientum  habere  voluerit,  expensas  proinde 
faciendas...mistra]is  et  qualtuor  de  villa... per  villam  dividant." 

■*  Cf.  Mayer,  Deut.  u.  Franz.  Verfassungsgeschichte,  II.  pp.  20-2,  184-203.  The 
casamenta  seem  not  to  have  been  hereditary :  but  they  soon  became  merely  a 
S)monym  oi  feoda.     See  Ducange,  ed.  Favre,  sub  voce. 

*  I  have  mislaid  the  reference,  which  concerns  either  Aulphs  or  Abbondance. 

®  Car.  Reg.  CDXXV.  (see  above,  p.  434,  n.  i).  The  dues  are  chiefly  sheaves  of 
corn,  as  well  as  hens,  loaves  etc.     Cf.  the  long  list  of  similar  dues  and  cash  payments, 


Clientes  and  rustici  447 

by  the  rights  claimed  by  Pierre  de  la  Chambre  over  the  men  of 
Cuines,  etc.^  The  peasants  are  subdivided  in  the  Priory-lands  at 
Innimont  into  the  owners  of  oxen,  and  those  without  beasts  of  burden^ 
and  there  owed  what  can  only  be  the  public  burdens  of  hay  and  straw 
and  a  rent  to  the  Count.  To  sum  up,  it  was  the  usual  dues  and 
services  which  were  levied.  In  Italy  it  is  possible  that  there  existed 
the  special  class  of  aldii  still  in  the  Val  di  Susa  in  Humbert  Ill's  time. 
At  any  rate  they  were  present  in  Collegno,  Pianezza  and  Alpignano  on 
the  Bishop  of  Turin's  lands  c.  1175^  They  were,  it  seems,  at  this  time 
peasants,  tied  to  the  soil,  paying  a  fixed  rent  and  dues ;  but  still  unfree 
in  condition^. 

While  it  is  unlikely  that  the  state  of  the  rustici  altered  very  materially 
under  Humbert  III  and  Thomas,  the  new  class  of  townsmen  made 
rapid  progress  under  the  latter.  More  often  than  the  invention  of  new 
privileges,  it  was  probably  the  inclusion  of  new  groups  of  persons  in  the 
privileged  circle  of  burgesses,  which  his  charters  imply ^;  for  he  was  a 
creator  of  new  towns  par  excellence.  In  succession  he  granted  Aosta, 
Yenne  and  Chambery  their  first  charter,  gave  its  first  privileges  to 
Miradolo,  two  or  three  times  enlarged  the  rights  of  Susa,  founded 
Villeneuve  in  Chablais  and  attempted  to  found  Villafranca  in  Piedmont. 
Some  of  his  documents  have  been  lost®;  but  enough  remains  to  show 
us  the  essentials  of  townsmanship  in  his  days. 

The  first  object  of  any  town,  or  even  village,  was  to  avoid  arbitrary 
tallage  and  to  substitute  for  it  a  fixed  house-tax.  The  grant  to  Miradolo 
in  1 198  extends  little  beyond  this',  and  Aosta,  Chambery  and  Villeneuve 

which  Amadeus  V  makes  over  to  Fran9ois  de  la  Rochette  in  1295.  The  peasants, 
besides  payments  on  their  vintage,  and  in  lieu  of  manopera,  paid  for  the  use  of  the 
alps,  the  mill  and  the  bakery,  and  so  forth. 

^  See  above,  p.  445,  n.  2. 

"  Car.  Reg.  CDV.     Cf.  the  villafius  and  cottarius  of  English  documents. 

2  Carte  del  Pinerolese,  B.S.S.S.  ill.  2,  pp.  225-7. 

*  Cf.  Mayer,  Ital.  Verfassungsgeschichte,  I.  159-65. 

'  For  Amadeus'  charter  to  Susa  contains  most  of  Thomas'  grants. 

*  i.e.  of  Yenne  (1215)  and  probably  of  Villafranca.  Of  that  to  Villeneuve  (1214) 
only  a  brief  abstract  remains  (Wurstemberger,  iv.  No.  293).  I  think  we  are  justified 
in  assuming  that  Yenne's  privileges  differed  hardly  at  all  from  Chambery's  (1232) 
(Car.  Reg.  DXXX. ;  Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc.  p.  126),  Villeneuve's  and  Montmelian's 
(1233  under  Amadeus  IV)  (Car.  Reg.  dlii.  ;  M^tn.  Soc.  Sav.  d^Hist.  et  d'' Arch.  1858, 
II.  p.  257)  which  form  a  closely-related  group.  This  is  the  reason  why  in  one  or  two 
places  I  speak  of  a  concession  as  the  rule  when  there  is  only  one  instance  proved 
(Chambery)  under  Thomas. 

^  Car.  Reg.  cccxcv.  (Cartario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  II.  p.  83).  The  text  is  not 
easy  to  follow.  "Nulla  alia  super  posita  in  supradictis  hominibus  facere  debet,"  is 
clear ;  but  Prof.  Gabotto,  U Abazia  e  il  Comune  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S.  i.  p.  132,  thinks 
all  comital  dues  forbidden  by  the  following  words,  for  which  see  loc.  cii.  To  me  it 
seems  that  they  remain,  but  that  arbitrary  tallage  is  forbidden. 


44^  Vassals  and  towns 

all  obtained  a  similar  concession.  But  while  in  Aosta^  and  Miradolo  the 
Count  expressly  renounces  the  right  of  arbitrary  tallage,  no  such  clause 
appears  in  the  charter  of  Chambery  of  1232.  By  a  singular  exception 
Susa  did  not  possess  the  exemption,  at  least  in  name.  Perhaps  the 
tallage  there  was  too  valuable  for  the  Count  to  surrender. 

Allied  in  nature  to  this  first  privilege  was  the  fixed  scale  of  punish- 
ments, which  in  like  manner  each  town  strained  its  endeavours  to  obtain. 
Criminal  offences  of  various  kinds,  murder,  brawling  and  adultery,  false 
weights  and  measures,  defrauding  the  revenue,  all  received  an  appropriate 
customary  punishment,  in  most  cases  a  fine;  and  arbitrary  action  here, 
too,  was  done  away  with.  Fixed  taxes  on  sales  and  suchlike  were  laid 
down  much  more  sparingly.     Only  Aosta  had  a  real  tariff. 

Next  to  these  prime  objects,  the  removal  of  the  grievances  relating 
to  purveyance  was  a  common  aim.  Chambery  even  gained  exemption 
(xovc\  fenatagium;  but  the  common  form  seems  to  have  the  limitation 
of  the  time  during  which  the  Count  might  delay  payment  for  the  goods 
his  officials  seized  on  for  his  court  to  forty  days,  although  Aosta  did  not 
obtain  so  much. 

Besides  these  strictly  communal  privileges,  one  grant  of  a  more  indi- 
vidual nature  was  sought  for  by  the  more  prosperous  towns.  This  was 
the  right  of  disposing  freely  of  their  property  by  will,  which  was  attained 
by  the  Savoyard  group  and  Susa,  although  not  by  Aosta.  Along  with 
it,  the  Count  gave  up  his  claim  on  the  property  of  intestates,  but  it  was 
reserved  for  Susa  by  a  special  charter  in  12 16  to  do  away  with  his 
oppressive  tutelage  of  widows  and  orphans  and  gain  for  testators  the 
power  of  selecting  a  guardian"^. 

Two  more  provisions  complete  the  list  of  typical  regulations.  One 
was  an  unadulterated  privilege,  the  limitation  of  the  townsmen's  service 
in  their  ruler's  cavalcatae.  The  men  of  Savoy  were  not  bound  to  cross 
the  Alps.  Those  of  Villeneuve  were  even  more  favoured;  their  service 
was  only  due  within  the  diocese  of  Sion,  and  there  only  within  reach  of 
their  town,  so  that  the  heroes  of  any  fight  that  might  occur  could  duly 
repose  the  same  night  behind  their  walls.  The  second  clause  was  a 
limitation  in  the  interests  of  the  feudal  lords.  No  serf  from  Savoy 
proper  was  to  settle  in  Chambery  without  the  consent  of  his  lord,  but 
if  he  did  do  so  unclaimed  for  a  year  and  a  day  he  became  an  authentic 
burgess.  Even  in  this  restriction  we  may  notice  that  the  Counts  allow 
immigration  from  their  other  provinces,  and  perhaps  utilize  a  technical 
division  of  their  lands  in  favour  of  the  non-noble  classes. 


1  Car.  Reg.  CCCLXXVIII.  (Cibrario  e  Promis,  Doc,  p.  82);  see  above,  p.  359,  n.  ^. 
Knights  and  ecclesiastics  in  Aosta  are  expressly  exempt  from  the  new  house-tax. 
"^  Car.  Reg.  CDXLix.  {M.H.F.  Leges  Munic.  i.  8). 


Townsmen  449 

So  far  I  have  dealt  with  grants  of  a  general  nature.  There  were, 
however,  others  of  a  local  complexion.  Thus  the  new  foundation  of 
Villeneuve  obtained  a  grant  of  markets.  Oppressed  Aosta  received 
special  protection  against  the  tyrannous  barons  and  had  a  peculiar  de- 
fensive league  confirmed.  An  offence  against  the  citizens  was  thus 
made  not  merely  an  ordinary  public  offence  for  the  public  courts,  but 
also  a  disregard  of  the  Count's  command,  which  entailed  an  extra 
penalty  and  was  liable  to  his  personal  intervention.  Further,  the 
Count  prescribed  the  traveller's  route  through  the  city  and  the 
limits  of  the  market,  with  protection  for  the  foreign  traders'  goods. 
Obviously  Aosta's  commercial  needs  were  narrow.  It  was  only  a 
halting-place  on  the  Great  St  Bernard  route  with  no  real  trade  of 
its  own\ 

Susa,  on  the  other  hand,  had  a  generic  likeness  to  a  Lombard 
commune,  and  possessed  an  independent  commerce.  The  additions 
to  his  grandfather's  charter  which  the  townsmen  presented  to  Thomas 
in  1198^  formulate  a  homegrown  custom  and  breathe  a  distinctly 
autonomous  spirit.  They  testify  also  to  the  growing  trade  of  the 
town.  A  foreigner's  breach  of  contract  is  visited  on  his  fellow-towns- 
men, in  case  they  do  not  enforce  honesty  from  him,  in  the  usual 
way.  In  return  for  the  exemption  of  Italians  from  most  of  the 
Mont  Cenis  customs,  the  Susians  claim  to  be  toll-free  throughout 
Italy^ 

The  same  liberal  common-sense  which  dictated  moderation  in  the 
levying  of  tolls  also  made  the  Susians  freely  accept  immigrants  to  live 
on  equal  terms  with  themselves'*.  As  to  what  those  terms  were  in  the 
matter  of  town-government  and  social  arrangements  our  information 
is  somewhat  meagre.  But  in  11 70  Humbert  III  makes  a  grant  to 
the  Canons  of  Oulx  of  the  Hospital  at  Susa  with  the  consent  of  the 
citizens  and  other  boni  homines  of  Susa^  Probably  this  implies  some 
kind  of  general  assembly,  which  had  developed  out  of  the  viciniae^. 
That  the  cives  in  1198  included  tenants  of  land  held  in  chivalry  is 
shown  by  the  provision  of  that  date  by  which  the  continued  possession 
of  honores  for  ten  years  after  a  rival's  claim  had  been  made  should  be 

^  Cf.  above,  pp.  359-^0  and  377-8. 

2  Car.  JReg.  cccxciv.  {M.H.P.  Leges  Munic.  I.  7-8).  They  begin  "  Usus  noster 
talis  est,"  and  are  obviously  added  to  Amadeus  Ill's  charter,  for  which  see  above, 
pp.  303-6. 

^  See  above,  p.  306,  n.  5. 

■*  "  Id  ipsum  quod  habere  volumus,  nobiscum  habitare  volentibus  concedimus." 

*  Car.  Reg.  cccxL.  {Carte  d'Oiilx,  B.S.S.S.  XLV.  p.  162).  "Consilio  et  voluntate 
civium  et  aliorum  bonorum  meorum  hominum  Secusiensium."  Cf.  above,  pp.  333-5 
(Joh.  Saris.  "Cives  et  incolae  loci  ")  and  439. 

^  See  above,  pp.  304  and  306. 

P.  o.  29 


450  Vassals  and  towns 

considered  a  good  titled  The  fact  is  emphasized  by  a  concession  of 
1 2 13  where  the  Susian  knights  appear  as  a  class,  separate  from  the 
burgenses".  In  what  way,  however,  the  remaining  cives  were  distin- 
guished from  the  ordinary  boni  homines  is  difficult  to  say  :  although 
from  analogy  the  ownership  of  real  property  may  have  been  the  criterion 
of  their  status.  In  that  case  the  boni  hotnines  would  consist  of  the  rank 
and  file  of  the  vicini,  the  unlanded  master-tradesmen  in  factl  As  for 
the  artisans,  the  operarii,  and  the  men  of  no  reputation,  the  glutones, 
they  would  not  be  concerned  with  the  town-government  c.  1200 
at  all^ 

The  same  classification  appears  with  but  slight  divergence  in  Aosta. 
From  out  the  mass  of  the  habitatores  who  are  under,  and  benefit  from 
the  town-regulations,  there  are  signalized  the  knights,  clergy  and  citizens 
or  burgesses  who  are  the  non-noble  landholders.  It  is  the  latter  who 
really  govern  the  town,  just  as  it  is  they  who  pay  the  fixed  tallage  agreed 
on*.  Nor  do  we  find  a  very  different  state  of  things  at  Chambery. 
There  are  the  habitatores,  and  the  apparently  more  select  burgenses^, 
and  the  other  distinction  reappears  too,  that  between  the  probus  vir 
and  the  lecator  of  no  character^. 

The  strict  legal  status  of  the  burgess  or  inhabitant  cannot  have 
been  originally  high.     Mostly  they  would  be  clientes  and  villeins.     We 


^  M.H.P.  Leges  Aliinic.  i.  8:  "Honores  qui  X  annis,  presente  calumpniatore, 
tenebuntur,  si  infra  etatem  non  fuerint,  postea  in  pace  teneantur."  I  suspect  that  the 
tradesmen  had  been  buying  out  needy  or  borrowing  knights. 

2  Car.  Reg.  CDXXXix.  (the  document  has  gone  astray  in  the  State  Archives  of 
Turin,  and  I  could  not  find  it):  "Concordia  inter  Thomam...et  milites  Secusienses 
una  cum  ecclesiasticis  et  burgensibus  Secusiae,  aliisque,  qui  partem  ex  eorum  feodis 
a  praefatis  militibus  acquisiverunt."  These  fiefs  are  doubtless  the  honores  of  the 
preceding  note. 

^  Cf.  the  case  of  Aosta  for  the  identification  of  cives  with  landholders,  and  also 
cf.  Mayer,  Italien.  Verfassungsg.  I.  p.  1 1,  n.  51,  "Cives  viz.  arimannos";  arimanni 
being  landholders  by  necessity. 

^  "Operarii,  cujuscumque  sint  officii,  quotquot  esse  poterint,  sine  occasione 
operentur."     For  the  glutones  see  above,  p.  304,  n.  1. 

^  "Ego  Thomas... de  consilio  baronum  meorum  et  habitatorum  civitatis  Auguste 
recipio  in  protectione  mea  personas  clericorum,  civium  burgensium,  vineas  et  omnes 
possessiones  mobiles  et  immobiles."  For  the  house-tax  cf.  "omnes  habitatores... con- 
stituunt  redderc.duodecim  denarios  pro  qualibet  extensa  brachiorum  domus  sue... 
exceptis  domibus  clericorum,  militum  et  religiosorum."  Here  the  possession  of  a 
house  limits  the  phrase  habitator.  I  imagine  the  several-storied  house  was  already 
in  use.  For  the  government  cf.  Car.  Reg.  cdlvi.  (Misc.  .Stor.  ital.  xxiii.  p.  283); 
the  leaguers  on  the  countryside  "juraverunt  cum  hominibus  civibus  Augustensibus." 

®  "In  villa  libera  non  recipiantur  homines  burgenses  nisi  de  voluntate  dominorum 
suorum,"  etc.  But  mostly  the  habitatores  are  referred  to,  and  in  the  charter  to  Mont- 
melian  burgenses  are  not  mentioned. 

'  Cibrario  and  Promis  misread  secator. 


Townsmen  451 

gather  from  Thomas'  first  charter  to  Aosta  that  the  greater  number  of 
the  townsmen  there  had  been  unfree,  unless  the  phraseology — trado 
libertati — is  merely  due  to  the  Notary's  struggle  to  express  the  new 
idea  of  a  tallage  by  consent  of  the  taxed \  Chambe'ry  was  a  demesne- 
town  of  the  Viscount  of  Savoy,  Berlio  de  Chambery,  who  sold  it,  men, 
lands,  and  dues,  save  the  castle  and  a  few  subsidiary  rights,  to  Count 
Thomas  in  February  1232-.  The  Count,  one  of  whose  favourite  alber- 
gariae  it  seems  to  have  been,  promptly  granted  the  town-charter  I  have 
discussed  and  thus  began  the  upward  movement,  which  ended  in  its 
becoming  capital  of  Savoy. 

The  government  of  these  towns  under  Count  Thomas  is  little 
mentioned.  Aosta  was  ruled  by  consuls — two  it  seems  for  each  of  its 
three  quarters — and  their  ofificials".  Chambery  was  governed  lafgely 
by  the  Count's  mestral,  who  was  assisted  in  his  functions  by  certain 
"prudentes  viri  et  sapientes,  probi  viri  et  discreti,"  and  various  subordi- 
nate ofificials.  Even  Susa  must  have  been  largely  administered  by  the 
Count's  Castellan  and  Gastalds,  and  S.  Giusto  Abbey's  feudal  rights 
would  also  reduce  the  sphere  of  communal  action.  We  are  left  with 
the  impression  that  that  sphere  was  not  large  anywhere  in  Savoy. 

None  the  less  the  communal  spirit  was  abroad.  Already  in  11 73 
among  the  negotiators  of  Humbert  Ill's  treaty  with  King  Henry  H  we 
find  two  burgesses,  one  surnamed  of  Aiguebelle,  along  with  two  knights 
and  two  castellans^.  They  have  a  recognized  place  in  the  state.  But 
their  main  endeavour  as  yet  was  to  obtain  some  sort  of  settled  custom 
and  fixed  rules  of  law,  rather  than  self-government.  This  was  the  case 
even  in  Susa,  infected  with  the  freer  Lombard  spirit  and  carefully  limiting 
the  Count's  power:  it  was  still  more  marked  in  Burgundian  Aosta,  where 
the  bourgeois  and  lesser  nobles  leant  on  their  ruler  for  support  against 
the  tyrannous  barons. 

^  See  above,  p.  359,  n.  ■z. 

-  Car.  Reg.  Dxxxi.  (Sclopis,  Consider azioni  intorno  a  Tommaso  /,  Mem.  Accad. 
Sc.  Torino,  xxxiv.  p.  93):  "Vendo  in  quantum  viz.  homines,  terras,  et  census, 
dominia,  vicecomitatu  {sic),  vicedominatu  {sic),  venditiones  domorum,  banna,  leydas, 
justitias,  tallias,  cursus  aquarum  et  stratas  publicas  et  privatas."  32,000  Susian  solidi 
and  the  fief  of  Montfort  were  the  price.  The  vicecoinitatus  outside  the  town  was 
reserved.  No  fiefs  are  mentioned  as  sold.  There  is  a  difficulty  about  the  exact  date. 
Thomas'  town-charter  is  dated,  "1232,  IV  Non.  Mart.,  Ind.  V,"  i.e.  4  March  1232; 
Berlio's  sale,  which  refers  to  the  town-charter  as  in  the  future,  is  dated,  "1232,  Id. 
Mart.,  Ind.  V,"  i.e.  15  March  1232;  his  son  William's  confirmation  of  the  sale  is 
dated  "IX  Kal.  Martii,  eodem  Martii  («V-),"  i.e.  21  Feb.  1232.  I  conclude,  in  the 
corrupt  text  before  us,  we  should  read  "Id.  Feb."  for  the  deed  of  sale,  iie.  13  Feb. 
1232,  and  "IX  Kal.  Martii,  eodem  anno,"  for  the  confirmation,  i.e.  21  Feb.  1232. 
The  date  of  the  town-charter,  4  March  1232,  then  follows  naturally. 

*  See  above,  p.  377-B  and  Due,  Misc.  stor.  ital.  xxiii.  p.  285. 

*  Gesta  Ifcm-ici  Sccitndi,  Rolls  Series,  i.  p.  41. 

29—2 


452  Summary 


Section  IV.    Summary. 

In  the  present  study,  it  has  been  attempted  to  examine  in  detail  the 
fortunes  of  the  House  of  Savoy  during  some  two  centuries.  It  has  been 
a  history  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest.  A  crowd  of  counts  obtained  local 
dominion  on  the  break-up  of  Charlemagne's  empire.  It  was  only  a  select 
number  of  them  who  survived  in  independence  the  throes  of  the  regrowth 
of  an  orderly  society.  These  survivors,  earlier  in  France,  later  in  Ger- 
many, held  the  royal  power  at  bay,  quelled  their  own  vassals,  organized 
their  domains,  and  gradually  formed  a  real  administration  and  a  petty 
state.  Now  this  is  the  significance  of  the  epoch  of  Count  Thomas  in 
Savoy.  By  then  the  dominions  of  his  house  had  acquired  consistency, 
some  degree  of  internal  order,  and  an  embryo  administration.  The 
imperial  ban  which  had  crushed  Henry  the  Lion  could  not  ruin  Savoy. 
So  the  critical  period  of  formation  which  we  have  traced  was  over.  We 
found  the  Humbertines  and  Ardoinids  c.  looo  as  typical  great  officials 
and  fideles  of  the  post-Carolingian  era,  the  ones  of  the  Burgundian  and 
West-Frankish,  the  others  of  the  North-Italian  species.  They  are  func- 
tionaries within  large  units  of  territory.  We  leave  the  Counts  of  Savoy 
in  the  twelfth  century  ruling  a  typical  minor  feudal  state  on  the  slopes 
of  the  Alps.  To  all  intents  and  purposes  they  are  autonomous.  In 
nationality  they  are  almost  wholly  Burgundian  and  French.  The  only 
counter-influence,  their  small  Italian  territory,  has  been  arrested  in  its 
development  or  diverted  from  the  normal  development  of  Lombardy. 
None  the  less,  in  spite  of  language,  it  is  Italian  and  not  Burgundian. 
But  a  local  custom  has  sprung  up,  as  also  is  the  case  in  the  various 
districts  of  Savoy  itself. 

This  process,  both  unifying  and  dividing,  is  shown  in  the  personal 
law  of  individuals.  In  the  eleventh  century,  each  man  has  his  own 
law,  hereditary  or  assumed.  He  is  Roman,  Lombard,  Salic,  Burgundian 
and  so  on,  as  the  case  may  be,  within  the  public  fabric  of  a  great  state. 
Now,  the  several  provinces  have  their  custom  or  use,  which  binds  all 
their  inhabitants.  This  is  chiefly  compounded  of  the  four  racial  laws 
above-named,  the  Roman  and  Salic  being  found  on  both  sides  of  the 
Alps,  the  Lombard  in  Piedmont,  and  the  Burgundian  in  Savoy ^  But 
also  it  is  a  natural  growth  from  immediate  circumstances.  It  repre- 
sents the  way  in  which  the  full-grown  feudal  system  worked  out  in  the 
several  localities.     Countless  small  facts  of  life,  physical  and  historical, 

^  See  Wurstemberger,  iii.  329-48,  for  this;  but  I  think  he  omits  the  subsequent 
consideration . 


Summary  453 

inevitable   and   accidental,  must  have   gone   towards   diversifying   the 
mould  in  which  the  customs  grew^ 

The  chief  result  of  this  process  of  growth  was  the  completed  feudal 
system  itself.  We  start  from  a  time  of  much  allodial  holding  and  of  the 
public  administration  of  justice  and  war.  We  end  in  a  time  when  almost 
all  land  is  held  in  vassalage,  and  when  the  private  administration  of 
justice  and  war  has  all  but  absorbed  the  public.  Part  of  the  growth 
was  concealed  from  the  eyes  of  contemporaries  by  the  new  interpretation 
of  old  documents.  They  sometimes  perhaps  read  more  into  the  eleventh 
century  allodial  grants  than  was  justified,  in  order  to  meet  the  new 
situation  created  in  Savoy  and  Piedmont  by  the  weakness  of  the  public 
authority  at  the  death  of  Adelaide-.  But  more  frequently  they  had 
twelfth-century  charters,  which  levelled  them  up  to  the  surrounding 
lay  seigneurs.  The  Canons  of  Maurienne  and  the  monks  of  Pinerolo 
provide  instances^  The  lay  feudalists  had  no  documents  as  a  rule  in 
the  twelfth  century.  They  reHed  on  custom.  But  Govone  gives  a  case 
in  point  where  custom,  and  custom  too  in  the  very  time  of  transition, 
was  written  down*. 

But  through  all  this  welter  of  decomposition,  the  Count's  status,  his 
prerogative,  remained  intact.  He  alone  owned  no  lay  lord  but  the 
Emperor;  he  alone  could  create  offences;  he  alone  could  extend  his 
protection  to  all  classes  in  his  dominions.  With  the  Viscounts,  he  still 
exercised  a  public  general  jurisdiction.  The  system  of  administration, 
which  was  built  up  by  the  later  Counts,  was  no  creation  in  the  void. 
What  happened  was  the  supersession  of  a  decayed,  antiquated  and 
deformed  administration  through  the  feudal  Viscounts  by  an  effective 
one  through  nominated  officials.  It  had  never  been  forgotten  that  the 
Count  was  the  ruler  of  the  land  as  well  as  its  seigneur.  Thus  he  had 
sources  of  strength  denied  to  the  most  overweening  vassal ;  they  helped 
to  preserve  his  authority  in  evil  days;  they  were  admirable  means  for 
increasing  it  in  prosperity. 

Certain  material  circumstances  were  also  strongly  in  the  Counts' 
favour  and  helped  towards  the  survival  of  the  later  State.  With  all 
due  deductions  made,  Savoy  had  a  distinct  principle  of  territorial  unity. 
Chablais,  Aosta,   Tarentaise  and  Maurienne  might  be  secluded  from 

^  Thus  the  absenteeism  of  the  Count  led  to  the  greater  power  of  the  Viscounts 
and  barons  in  Aosta. 

-  It  was  decided  in  1218  at  Pinerolo  that  the  entire  jurisdiction  over  the  town  was 
conveyed  to  the  Abbot  by  Countess  Adelaide's  gift  (Carlario  di  Pinerolo,  B.S.S.S. 
II.  1 14-5).  Thus  it  is  not  quite  safe  to  argue  from  thirteenth-century  facts  back  to 
earlier  times;  e.g.  were  the  advocaii,  who  appear  c.  1270  as  holding  the  public  courts 
for  the  Count  (Wurstemberger,  III.  335)  ancient  officials  or  new? 

'  See  above,  pp.  285-6,  442-3. 

*  See  above,  p.  259,  n.  4. 


454  Summary 

one  another  by  the  main  ridge  or  the  many  subsidiary  ranges  of  the 
Alps ;  Susa  might  be  essentially  Lombard,  and  other  domains  lie  scat- 
tered towards  Vienne  and  Lyons.  But  none  the  less  the  greater  part 
of  the  Humbertine  lands  formed  a  coherent  group,  where  dialects  of 
the  same  tongue  were  spoken,  and  where  government,  traditions  and 
habits  of  life  were  much  the  same.  There  were  the  same  narrow 
mountain-valleys,  the  same  occasional  marshy  plains,  the  same  scanty 
river-side  cornfields,  the  pine-woods,  the  grassy  alps  among  and  above 
them,  the  same  pastoral  economy,  the  identical  seasons  of  the  year,  and 
dominating  all,  the  genii  of  the  land,  those  rocky  or  snowy  peaks,  which 
seemed  the  most  abiding  and  ancient,  if  in  truth  they  were  the  latest- 
born,  of  the  members  of  the  physical  world. 

In  addition  the  land  occupied  a  strategic  position  on  the  Alpine 
chain  which  gave  it  its  character.  Three  great  passes  were  wholly  in 
her  territory,  as  well  as  the  Italian  outlet  of  a  fourth,  the  Mont  Genevre. 
Thus  the  Counts  had  always  something  to  give,  something  to  bargain 
with.  It  was  better  to  have  them  as  friends  than  as  enemies.  Then 
the  fortunate  retention  of  the  Val  di  Susa  and  the  claim  to  rule  Pied- 
mont prevented  their  being  shut  up  in  the  blind  alley  of  merely  Bur- 
gundian  ambitions  like  the  Dauphins.  It  gave  them  a  wider  outlook, 
and  when  the  growth  of  France  and  Switzerland  shut  out  all  hope  on 
those  sides,  it  offered  them  a  prospect  of  an  Italian  kingdom. 

The  control  of  the  passes  did  not  only  yield  political  advantages,  it 
gave  a  measure  of  financial  strength.  In  general,  the  royal  roads,  passes, 
and  tolls,  with  all  the  swarm  of  pilgrims,  travellers  and  merchants,  were 
under  the  Counts'  rule'.  Not  only  did  this  prerogative  check  feudal 
autonomy  by  giving  the  Counts  occasion  for  interference  throughout 
their  counties;  but  the  income  so  obtained  was  an  invaluable  addition 
to  that  derived  from  albergariae,  judicial  profits  and  demesnes,  which 
were  seemingly  none  too  large. 

I  have  already  descanted  enough  on  the  advantages  of  the  Counts' 
princedom  of  the  Empire  and  the  regalian  rights  they  enjoyed^.  But 
I  should  emphasize  again  the  results  of  their  practice  of  primogeniture, 
even  when  qualified  by  the  system  of  appanages.  It  meant  the  pre- 
servation of  the  State  and  of  the  uniqueness  of  the  Counts'  position. 
True,  they  shared  this  custom  with  their  fellow-princes  in  Burgundy. 
But  in  Italy  it  was  hard  to  parallel,  and  the  Savoyards,  unlike  the 
other  Burgundian  Counts,  were  factors,  though  of  little  weight  as 
yet,  in  Italian  politics.  In  the  later  Middle  Ages  its  faithful  observance 
was  to  give  them  an  immense  advantage. 

So  far  I  have  dealt  with  classifiable  and  external  matters.  There 
remains  to  mention  the  character  of  the  Counts  themselves.    By  a  happy 

^  Cf.  above,  pp.  274,  430-2.  2  ggg  above,  pp.  422-3,  453. 


Summary  455 

fate  they  seem  to  have  been  with  one  exception  able  men  who  were 
suited  to  the  circumstances  in  which  they  lived.  Only  Humbert  III 
appears  to  have  lacked  talent,  and  even  he  had  a  persistence  and  an 
obstinacy,  which  weathered  the  storms  of  Barbarossa.  If  he  lost  much, 
he  gave  up  nothing '.  His  prerogative  and  every  claim  remained  intact 
for  his  capable  son  to  use. 

The  reign  of  the  warrior  Thomas  indeed  began  a  new  era  of  expan- 
sion and  prosperity  for  his  house.  He  came  in  the  nick  of  time,  a  man 
swift  to  see  the  trend  of  events  and  seize  his  opportunity,  ready  to  organize 
what  was  itself  struggling  into  settled  form,  extraordinarily  active  and 
ambitious,  supple  and  resolute,  quick  to  change,  and  yet  also  to  resume, 
his  policy,  a  gallant  and  eminent  figure  even  in  the  illustrious  House  of 
Savoy.  In  the  timeliness  of  his  advent,  in  his  aptness  for  the  task  he 
had  under  his  hand,  we  may  recognize  the  power  of  Fortune,  of  whom 
he  was  no  favoured  child,  but  yet  a  careful  servant. 

Vostro  saver  non  ha  contrasto  a  lei; 
Ella  provvede,  giudica  e  persegue 
Suo  regno,  come  il  lore  gli  altri  dei. 

^  Thus  it  is  noticeable  that  no  charter  of  renunciation  of  episcopal  spolia,  not  in- 
cluding confirmations,  seems  to  emanate  from  him.  He  confirmed  those  in  favour  of 
Aosta  (see  above,  p.  302)  and  Maurienne  (Car.  Reg.  DCCLXXXVi.,  Cibrario  e  Promis, 
Doc,  p.  173). 


APPENDIX   OF    DOCUMENTS 

I.  Concession  of  the  castle  of  Ville  de  Challant  to  Boso  de  Chatillon, 

Viscount  of  Aosta,  April  1206. 

[This  document,  registered  in  Carutti  (cdxvi),  and  used  by  de 
Tinier  Historique  de  la  valine  d'Aoste,  Duche,  p.  47,  and  Menabrea, 
Orig.  fiod.  p.  418-19,  has  not,  I  believe,  been  published  in  extenso.'\ 

Anno  dominice  incarnationis  millesimo  ducentesimo  sexto  mense 
Aprilis.  Notum  sit  omnibus  tarn  presentibus  quam  futuris  quod  nos 
Thomas  Comes  Mauriennensis  et  in  Italia  Marchio  concedimus  dilecto 
fideli  nostro  Bosoni  Augustensi  vicecomiti  atque  suis  heredibus  inper- 
petuum  castrum  de  Villa  in  feudum  pro  aumento  {sic)  sui  feudi  et  juxta 
consuetudinem  aUorum  castrorum  vallis  Augustensis  inde  nobis  et  nostris 
teneatur  et  sui  successores;  salvo  tamen  in  dono,  quod  omni  conquerenti 
de  vicecomite  rationem  et  justiciam  exhibeat  vicecomes  in  curiam 
nostram.  Sic  enim  donamus  et  concedimus  ut  in  eo  hedificat  et 
castellat. 

A  fragment  of  the  Count's  seal  still  hangs  from  this  original. 
[Archivio  di  Stato  of  Turin,  Aosta,  Duche  d'Aoste,  Paq.  xiv.  Ville 
pres  de  Challant,  No.  i.] 

II.  Recognition  of  Boso,  Viscount  of  Aosta,  3  July  1237. 
[Abstracted,  Carutti,  cmlix      used   by  De  Tillier,  op.  cit.,  Duchi, 

p.  43,  Seigneuries,  pp.  22,  64,  118,  232;   it  has  not,  I  believe,  been 
published  in  exfenso.] 

S.  T  Anno  domini  mccxxxvii  indictione  x  quinto  Nonas  Julii  in 
presentia  testium  subscriptorum  Willelmus  prior  Sancti  Martini  de 
Ayma,  scriptor  illustris  viri  domini  Amedei  Comitis  Sabaudie  et 
Marchionis  in  Ytalia,  nomine  et  ex  parte  predicti  Avedei  (sic)  domini 
Comitis  Sabaudie  et  pro  ipso  et  ab  eodem  Comite  specialiter  ad  hoc 
missus,  peciit  a  domino  Bosone  Vicecomite  de  Augusta  ut  eidem 
Willelmo  scriptori  domini  Comitis  et  ex  parte  ipsius  Comitis  diceret, 
recognosceret  adque  confiteretur  omnia  ea  que  idem  dominus  Boso 
et  hered[es  ejus(?)]  adque  antecessores  debebant  vel  debuerint  nomine 
placiti  vel  playdiamenti  seu  mutagii  [seu(?)]  alia  qualibet  de  causa  dicto 
domino  Amedeo  Comiti  et  ipsius  antecessoribus  pro  feudis  que  ab  ipso 
[vel(?)]  ab  antecessoribus  tenebat  vel  tenuerat.     Qui  predictus  dominus 


Appendix  of  Documents  457 

Boso  ibidem  et  in  continenti  ad  instanciam  predicti  Willelmi  prions 
dixerit  {sic),  confessus  fuit  adque  recognovit  se  debere  et  antecessores 
ejus  debuisse  nomine  mutagii  placiti  vel  playdiamenti  predicto  domino 
Amedeo  Comiti  et  suis  antecessoribus  in  mutacione  seu  morte  feudatarii 
sive  tenimentarii  pro  feuidis  {sic)  que  ipse  tenebat  ab  eo  decem  et 
septem  milibus  {sic)  solidorum  Secusinorum  novorum  ad  misericordiam 
domini  Comitis  qui  pro  tempore  fuerit,  et  misericordia  domini  Comitis 
erga  ipsum  debet  esse  bona  et  erga  heredes  ipsius.  Actum  in  Castro  de 
Clin  in  aula\  ubi  interfuerunt  testes  vocati  et  specialiter  rogati :  Dominus 
Vubertus  et  Aymo  filii  dicti  Vicecomitis  et  Jhoannes  archidiaconus 
Augustensis,  Ricardus  [de]  Sancto  Andreo  in  Morianna,  T(er)abiz(?) 
quidam  Cacifer  de  Ayma.  Et  ego  Petrus  de  Masco[to  (?)  sacri]  palacii 
notarius  interfui  et  banc  cartam  de  mandato  jamdicti  vicecomitis  et 
predicti  Willelmi  prioris  de  Ayma  rogatus  scripsi  et  subscripsi,  signavi 
€t  tradidi.     S.T. 

[Original:  Arch,  di  Stato,  Turin,  Cite  et  Duche  d'Aoste,  Paq.  i.  No.  8.] 

III.  Recognition  of  Geoffrey,  Viscount  of  Aosta,  and  his  brothers, 
19  Dec.  1242. 

[Abstracted,  Carutti,  dclxxxvii  ;  used  by  De  Tillier,  op.  cit.,  Duche, 
p.  47;  it  has  not,  I  believe,  been  published  in  extenso.] 

S.  T.  Anno  domini  millesimo  ccxlii  indictione  quintadecima  xiiii 
Kalendas  Januarii,  in  presencia  infrascriptorum  testium,  ad  requisi- 
tionem  domini  Amedei  Comitis  Sabaudie  dominus  Gottafredus  Vice- 
comes  Augustensis  et  fratres  sui  Aymo  et  Boso  confessi  sunt  se  [tenere] 
debere(?)  ab  eodem  domino  Comite  vicecomitatum,  vicedonnag[ium 
€t]  mistralliam  cum  suis  pertinenciis ;  item,  quintam  partem  omnium 
proventuum  a  summitate  Montis  Jovis  usque  Helierum  et  assetamenta^ 
vallis  Auguste,  exceptis  illis  de  Vaudagia  de  quibus  dubitant;  item, 
quod  debent  illud  quod  Heremancii  debent  domino  Comiti,  et  ipsos 
debent  conservare,  et  corpus  castri  de  Feniz  scilicet  a  Karto  (i.e.  Quart) 
usque  ad  pontem  de  Lyurogi  (?)  in  podio  et  piano.  Item  tenent  qui 
sunt  in  terra  ipsorum ;  item  usurarios  et  adulteros  qui  sunt  in  terra 
ipsorum  et  posse.  Item,  quod  possunt  dimificare  {sic,  copy  has  domt- 
Jicare)  turrim  in  posse  eorum.  Item  fortunas  et  argenterias.  Item 
banna  et  justicias  tocius  terre  eorum  et  posse;  et  borgeisiam  de 
Chasteillon  et  castrum  de  Ch[a]steillon  et  castrum  de  Rives  ubi  burgum 
erat.  Item,  corpus  castri  de  Villa.  Item  placita  generalia  de  Donaz 
et  Mont  Jovet  et  Chasteillon  et  Nons  et  osta  castri  Argentes  et  Vaudagi 
de  seplem  annis  semel.  De  illis  de  Verret  non  sunt  certi.  Et  placita 
vieranz  et  vinum  Comitis  ubicumque  habeat.     Item  de  hoc  de  Cillani 

1  Carutti  reads,  "Elia  Maula  (?)".     The  castle  is  that  of  Cly. 
^  Copy  has  assectamenta. 


458  Appendix  of  Documents 

(?  Oillani,  i.e.  Mont  Ouille)  non  sunt  certi,  si  est  de  domino  Comite 
seu  episcopi  Vercellensis,  exceptis  bannis  et  justiciis  que  sunt  de  domino 
Comite.  Item  nemora  nigra,  aquas  et  rivagia,  pasqueria  de  piano  (?)  de 
Chasteillan,  et  in  terra  eorum  in  pluribus  locis,  et  plures  insulas  in  terra 
ipsorum.  Item  apud  burgum  de  Montgo  xiiii  solidos  et  duos  denarios 
et  obolum  Muris(ianorum,  i.e.  IMauricianorum)  prout  intendunt.  Item, 
tenent  Heremancios  in  posse  Montis  Joveti  et  placita  vieranz.  Et  pro 
isto  feudo  illi  de  herbergo  ipsorum  debent  esse  homines  ipsius  domini 
Comitis  ligii.  Placitum  ignorant,  set  inquirent,  et  debent  cavalcatam 
et  unum  receptum'  apud  Chasteillon  semel  in  anno,  et  alterum  in 
Augusta  quem  fecit  Vicedonnus  quando  Comes  ibi  facit  transitum  et 
sine  armis.  Item,  mareschauciam  feni  et  palee  terre  ipsorum.  Item, 
Vicedonnus  debet  administrare  saporem  in  coquina  et  ligna  ante  Co- 
mitem,  et  debet  in  die  habere  livram  suam  ;  set  non  determinaverunt. 
Et  mistrallis  debet  administrare  mantilia  et  cifos  et  cutellas,  et  debet 
habere  pro  Hvra  sua  in  die  xv  denarios,  et  si  quid  amissum  fuerit  sibi 
debet  restitui  quando  Comes  recedit. 

Actum  est  hoc  Auguste  in  domo  domini  episcopi  ubi  fuerunt  vocati 
testes  et  rogati  Dominus  Jacobus  Abbas  Segusiensis,  Dominus  Guigo 
de  Amaisins,  Wmus.  Boiquardi  (?,  Carutti  has  Bonivardi),  Jacelinus  de 
Chambuerc,  Amedeus  de  Thuillia,  Rodulfus  de  Dinia,  Tisbaudus 
de  Podio  Gauterii,  Jacobus  de  Porta,  Wmus.  de  Arculo,  Wmus.  Grossus, 
Jacominus  de  Karto,  Jacquiminus  de  Valeisia  et  plures  alii. 

S.  T.  Ego  Jacobus  Barberius  sacri  imperii  et  Comitis  Sabaudie 
notarius  et  scriptor  rogatus  scripsi  et  tradidi  feliciter. 

[Original,  Arch,  di  Stato,  Turin,  Cite  et  Duche  d'Aoste,  Paq.  i. 
No.  II.  Here  and  there,  for  a  dubious  word,  I  have  used  a  copy  of 
the  fourteenth  century,  same  Paquet,  No.  13.] 

IV,     Recognition  of  Ebal,  Viscount  of  Aosta,  21  Oct.  1287. 

[Used  by  de  Tillier,  op.  cit.,  Duche,  p.  47.] 

S.  T.  Anno  domini  m°  cc°  lxxx°  septimo,  indictione  xv=*  die  lune 
post  festum  Beati  Luce  Evangeliste,  presentibus  testibus  infrascriptis, 
ad  instanciam  et  requisitionem  mei  notarii  infrascripti  stipulantis  re- 
quirentis  et  recipientis  vice  et  nomine  illustris  viri  domini  Amedei 
Comitis  Sabaudie,  confessus  fuit  per  sacramentum  dominus  Ebalus 
Vicecomes  Augustensis  se  tenere  ad  feudum  a  predicto  domino  Comite 
et  de  ejus  dominio  vicecomitatum  per  totam  vallem^  Auguste  cum 
bagnis,  justiciis  et  pertinenciis  ejusdem  vicecomitatus.  Item,  quintam 
partem  de  omnibus  excheytis  que  excedere  (?)  possunt  domino  Co- 
miti  in  valle  Auguste.     Item  quinque  solidos  de  libra  in  curia  domini 

^  Carutti  has  "praeceptum." 

^  De  Tillier,  following  the  fourteenth  century  copy,  reads  villam. 


Appendix  of  Documents  459 

Comitis  omni  die  qua  dominus  Comes  moratur  in  valle  Auguste.  Item 
bagna,  justicias,  nemora  nigra,  aquas,  pascua,  boschacias,  usurarios, 
vierias,  ayrimagnos  in  terra  Vicecomitis.  Item,  chercuriam  Auguste 
et  vinum  computatum  sognyavi  (s/c)  Comitis  in  terra  Vicecomitis,  re- 
galia, placita  generalia,  escheytas  caminorum,  fortunas,  et  omnes  maynas 
que  reperiri  possunt  in  terra  Vicecomitis  cum  insulis  et  rivagiis.  Item, 
tenet  ab  eodem  totum  illud  feudum  quod  dominus  Morellus  tenebat  a 
domino  Comite  ab  Inenzon  (?)  superius  et  a  sapellis  de  Lo  superius. 
Item,  tenet  ab  eodem  usagia  que  sibi  fiunt  vel  fieri  debent  in  Andor. 
Item,  castrum  de  Monte  Joveto  cum  pedagio  et  castrum  de  Villa  et 
quasdam  possessiones  que  dicuntur  de  feudo  Bardi  ubicumque  sint 
a  Grosso  Saxo  superius.  Et  pro  predictis  confessus  fuit  se  debere 
dicto  domino  Comiti  duas  partes  de  quinquaginta  livris,  dicens  quod 
illi  de  Cli  debent  aliam  terciam  partem,  protestando  quod  si  quid 
oblitus  fuerit  quam  cicius  recollet  illud  manifestabit,  nee  esset  sibi 
aliquod  prejudicium. 

Actum  in  Augusta  m  viridario  domus  domini  episcopi  Augustensis, 
ubi  ad  hec  fuerunt  testes  vocati  et  rogati  Dominus  Aymo  Uardex  (?) 
miles,  Jothefredus  de  Cli  et  Bonifacius  de  Cli,  Jaquiminus  de  Ozano  et 
plures  alii.  Et  ego  VuUielmus  de  Bans  publicus  notarius  sacri  palacii 
qui  banc  cartam  ad  opus  dicti  domini  Comitis  et  de  partium  voluntate 
scripsi  fideliter  et  signavi. 

[From  original  roll  and  fourteenth  century  copy ;  Arch,  di  Stato, 
Turin,  Cite  et  Duche  d'' Aoste,  Paq.  i.  No.  24.] 

V.     Recognition  of  the  Lords  of  Cly,  same  date. 

Same  opening  as  in  IV. — confessi  fuerunt  et  publice  recognoverunt 
per  sacramentum  Radulphus,  Gothefredus  et  Bonifacius  de  Cly  fratres 
se  tenere  ad  feudum  a  dicto  domino  Comite  et  de  ejus  dominio  bagnas 
et  justicias,  clamas  et  totum  plenum  dominium  que  possunt  accidi  in 
potestate  de  Cli  et  alibi  ubicumque  aliquid  teneant  vel  possideant  in 
valle  Auguste,  nemora  nigra,  rivagia,  pascua,  usurarios,  boschacias, 
exthocerios,  ayrimandos,  fortunas  et  maynas  que  possunt  reperiri  super 
terram  et  dominium  ipsorum,  cum  insulis  et  excheytis  camini  dominii 
predictorum.  Et  pro  predictis  confitentur  se  debere  dicto  domino 
Comiti  quinquaginta  libras  monete  Augustensis  de  placito  quando 
contingerit,  protestantes  quod  non  esset  in  eorum  prejudicio  si  quid 
oblivioni  tradiderunt  quia  illud  libenter  confitebuntur  quando  venerint 
ad  memoriam. 

Actum (as   in  IV.).     Witnesses:    dominus  Ebalus  Vicecomes 

Augustensis,  dominus  Amedeus  de  Virion  miles,  Jaquiminus  de  Ozano 
et  plures  alii. 

[Same  sources  as  IV.] 


460  Appendix  of  Documents 

VI.  Recognition  of  Peronetus  of  Chatillon,  20  Oct.  1280. 

Same  opening  as  in  IV. ...confessus  fuit  per  sacramentum  Peronetus 
de  Castellione  domicellus  se  tenere  ad  feodum  a  dicto  domino  Comite 
bagna  et  justicias  in  potestate  Castellionis  et  totum  plenum  dominium, 
nemora,  aquas,  pascua,  insulas,  prout  homines  sui  et  illi  de  potestate 
dicti  loci  consueverunt.  Item,  castrum  vetus  quod  est  suptus  Castel- 
lionem  juxta  Duriam  et  reytibiles  et  ayrimaneios  et  burgesiam  sui  burgi 
et  exchetas  sui  camini,  fortunas  et  vierias  et  bagna  et  justicias  cum  toto 
pleno  dominio  in  quantum  ipse  tenet  de  rebus  quondam  Vicecomitis 
cum  boschaciis  et  usurariis,  dicens  quod  ipse  debet  de  placito  pro  rebus 
patris  sui  triginta  libras  et  c.  et  xi.  solidos  pro  rebus  sibi  adjudicatis  de 
rebus  quondam  domini  Aymonis  Vicecomitis  Augustensis. 

Actum  apud  Male-consilium  in  Augusta  ante  domum  Amedei  Gay 
ubi  ad  hec  fuerunt  testes  vocati  et  rogati  Odoininus  de  Granges,  Johan- 
netus  de  Castellione  et  Bronetus  filius  dicti  Odonini.  Et  ego  etc. — as 
in  IV. 

[Same  sources  as  IV.] 

VII.  Ebal,  Viscount  of  Aosta,  surrenders  his  castle  of  Ville  at  Challant 
on  the  Count's  entry  in  the  Val  d' Aosta,  11  Sept.  1295. 

[This  has,  I  believe,  been  published  by  Mg""  Due,  Bishop  of  Aosta, 
in  a  scarce  brochure,  which  I  have  not  been  able  to  see.  It  is  not  in 
the  Biblioteca  Nazionale  of  Turin.] 

Anno  domini  millesimo  ducentesimo  nonagesimo  quinto  indictione 
octava  die  dominico  sequenti  post  festum  Nativitatis  Beate  Marie 
Virginis  presentibus  testibus  infrascriptis,  ad  instanciam  mei  Hugoneti 
de  Chevros  infrascripti  notarii  omnia  infrascripta  stipulantis  et  reci- 
pientis  vice  et  nomine  illustris  viri  domini  Amedei  Comitis  Sabaudie, 
Gotefredus  filius  nobilis  viri  domini  Ebali  Vicecomitis  Augustensis 
nomine  suo  et  ipsius  domini  Ebali  ad  requisicionem  mei  notarii  in- 
frascripti reddidit  et  deliberavit  castrum  eorum  de  Villa  apud  Challant 
cum  clavibus  secundum  mores  et  consuetudines  Vallis  Auguste  in 
manu  {sic)  Anthelmi  [Porterii]  de  Thornone  Tharentasiensis  diocesis 
recipientis  nomine  et  ad  opus  dicti  domini  Comitis.  Et  ibidem  di- 
misit  pro  dicto  castro  custodiendo  ad  expensas  ipsius  domini  Ebali 
servientem  infrascriptum,  videlicet,  Perronetum  de  Albiniey;  confitendo 
idem  Gotefredus  quod  dictum  castrum  est  reddibilem  (sic)  dicto  domino 
Comiti  quocienscumque  ipsum  dominum  Comitem  venire  contingerit  in 
Vallem  Auguste.     Ad  hec  interfuerunt  testes  vocati  Johannes  de  Villa, 

Petrus  Artholdi,  Ber[ ]  Tholotus  de  Villa  et  Guillencus  de  Dania 

notarius. 

Actum  apud  Villam  en  Chalant  ante  portam  castri  de  Villa,  et  ego 
Hugonetus  de  Chevros  publicus  notarius  sacri  palacii  hiis  interfui  qui 


Appendix  of  Documents  461 

banc  cartam  rogatus  a  dicto  Anthelmo  nomine  et  ad  opus  dicti  domini 
Comitis  scripsi. 

In  the  same  way  Geoffrey  surrendered  Montjovet  the  day  before ; 
as  did  Boniface  and  Geoffrey  de  Cly  their  castle  of  Cly ;  and  Margaret, 
wife  of  Perronet  de  Chatillon,  the  castle  of  Chatillon. 

[Original  roll:  Arch,  di  Stato,  Turin,  Cite  et  DuM  d'Aoste,  Paq.  11. 
No.  6.] 

VIII.  Sale  of  the  Viscounty,  Visdomnate  and  Mestralsy  of  Aosta  by 
Ebal  de  Challant  and  his  sons  to  Amadeus  V,  24  Sept.  1295. 

[The  description  of  the  Viscount's  rights,  contaminated  with  that  in 
No.  Ill,  was  published  by  De  Tillier,  op.  cit.,  Duc/ie,  p.  44  (cf.  p.  48), 
from  a  later  copy.] 

S.  T.  Anno  m°cc"  nonagesimo  quinto  Indictione  vin^  die  salbati 
{sic)  proxima  post  festum  Beati  Mauricii  presentibus  me  notario  et 
testibus  infrascriptis  per  hoc  presens  publicum  instrumentum  conctis 
appareat  presentibus  et  futuris  quod  illustris  vir  dominus  Amedeus 
Comes  Sabaudie  pro  se  suisque  heredibus  et  successoribus  ex  una 
parte  et  nobilis  vir  dominus  Ebalus  Vicecomes  Vallis  Auguste  et  Goto- 
fredus  et  Aymonetus  filii  dicti  domini  Ebali  de  voluntate  et  expresso 
consensu  dicti  patris  sui  pro  se  suisque  heredibus  et  successoribus  ex 
parte  altera,  gratis  ac  suis  voluntatibus  spontaneis,  non  decepti,  non 
coacti,  set  plene  ut  asserunt  de  jure  suo  et  de  facto  instructi  per- 
mutationem  et  excambium  fecerunt  de  bonis,  rebus,  jurisdicionibus, 
juribus,  proprietatibus,  et  possessionibus,  hominibus,  vasallis,  feudis  et 
feudatariis  et  de  omnibus  aliis  infrascriptis  in  modum  qui  sequitur. 
Videlicet,  quia  dicti  dominus  Ebalus  et  Gotefredus  et  Aymonetus 
permutaverunt  et  ex  causa  permutationis  dederunt,  tradiderunt  et 
concesserunt  nominibus  quibus  supra  predicto  domino  Comiti  pre- 
senti  petenti  et  recipienti  nominibus  quibus  supra  vicecomitatum  et 
jura  et  pertinencias  et  rationes  ipsius  vicecomitatus  quecumque  sint 
et  qualiacumque  et  ubicumque  et  quocumque  nomine  censeantur, 
civitatis  Auguste  et  suburbiorum  et  pertinenciarum  ipsius  quantum 
banna  ipsius  protenduntur  ac  eciam  totius  Vallis  Auguste,  exceptis 
ipso  domino  Ebalo  et  ejus  liberis  et  eorum  hospicio,  et  exceptis 
dominis  de  Cly  et  domino  Castellionis  qui  nunc  sunt  et  qui  pro 
tempore  fuerint  et  eorum  hospiciis  in  quibus  et  super  quibus  non 
conccdunt  ncc  aliquo  modo  concedere  intendunt  dicto  domino  Comiti 
vicecomitatum,  set  se  et  prenominatos  liberos  et  immunes  esse  volunt 
a  vicecomitatu.  Item,  exceptis  castris,  jurisdicionibus,  mero  et  misto 
imperio,  possessionibus,  proprietatibus,  feudis,  feudatariis,  aliis  quam 
infrascriptis,  que  et  quas  habet,  tenet,  possidet  vel  quasi  possidet  per 
se  vel  per  alium  extra  banna  civitatis  Auguste  ubicumque  sint  cum 


462  Appendix  of  Documents 

omnibus  suis  pertinenciis  et  dominio  ipsorum  feudorum  existentibus 
extra  banna  Auguste.     Item,  tradunt  jurisdicionem  totalem  et  justiciam 
altam  et  bassam  et  exercicium  ipsius  jurisdicionis  in  civitate  Auguste  et 
infra  banna  ipsius  civitatis  et  eciam  in  tota  dicta  valle  racione  ipsius 
vicecomitatus  ipsis  competentes.     Item,  omnia  banna  sexaginta  soli- 
dorum   et   infra,   et    omnia  banna  falsarum   mensurarum,   quecumque 
res  mensurentur  vel  ponderentur  vel  appendantur.     Item,  omnia  jura 
recipiendi   cautiones,   satisdaciones  vel  alias  securitates.     Item,   quin- 
tam  partem   omnium    bannorum   et  excheytorum    sommam  sexaginta 
solidorum   extendencium.     Item,  jus  capiendi  et  detinendi   et  custo- 
diendi  illos  qui  capiuntur ;   item,  custodiendi  campos   campionum  et 
percipiendi   omnia  que  percipi   [h]ac  de  causa  racione  vicecomitatus 
consueverunt.     Item,  omnia  banna  adulterium   vel  strupum   (sic)  co- 
mittencium    (sic).      Item^    omnia    dupla    causarum   ventilatarum    non 
finitarum   et  ventilandarum.     Item,   cancellariam,  vicedonnatum,   mis- 
traliam,  salvis  juribus  feudatariorum.     Item,  chercurias  Augustanas  et 
jus  ipsis  competens  in  ipsis  et  pro  ipsis  que  omnia  ad  ipsos  pertinere 
debent,  ut  asserunt,  in  dicta  civitate  et  infra  banna  ipsius  et  eciam  in 
tota  dicta  valle  ocasione  (sic)  et  racione  dicti  vicecomitatus  exceptis 
superius  exceptatis.     Item,  feudum  domus  de  Rupe  quod  est  feudum 
unius  equi.     Item,  domum  suam  fortem  que  vocatur  Porta  Beatricis 
cum  orto,  cujus  fines  sunt,  de  prima  parte  res  quas  tenet  Peronetus 
de  Valledigna  et  res  Sancti  Benigni.     Item,  feudum  totum   quod  ab 
ipso  domino  Ebalo  tenent  et  tenere  debent  liberi  Jacomini  condam 
de  Amavilla  et   omnia  usagia  inde  debita.     Et  generaliter   quidquid 
habent,   tenent,  possident  vel   quasi,  vel  habere   debent  seu  possunt 
in  dicta  civitate  et  infra  banna  ipsius,  excepta  domo  sua  que  vocatur 
Turisnova,  et  exceptis  curtilibus  et  aliis  dicte  Turi  adjacentibus,  et 
exceptis  et  rexervatis  (stc)  ipsi  domino  Ebalo  servitiis  et  usagiis  sibi 
debitis  per  aliquas  personas  dicte  civitatis  pro  feudis  que  ab  illo  tenent 
extra  muros  civitatis,  in  quibus  tamen  feudatariis  nuUam  retinet  juris- 
dicionem in  personis,  set  in  feudis  sicut  dominus  feudi.     Tradunt  et 
concedunt  predicti  ut  supra  dicto  domino  Comiti  recipienti  ut  supra 
res  predictas  cum  omnium  predictorum  juribus,  racionibus,  pertinenciis, 
appendiciis,  feudis,  feudatariis,  hommagiis  et  juribus  et  racionibus  et 
pertinenciis  aliis  universis  dicti  vicecomitatus  et  aliorum  omnium  pre- 
dictorum, nichil  sibi  penitus  retinentes  nisi  dictam  domum  de  Turenova 
cum  curtili  et  aliis  adjacentibus  et  dictis  serviciis  et  usagiis  ut  supra  in 
dicta  civitate   et  infra  banna  ipsius.     Tradunt  inquam  ad  habendum, 
tenendum,  possidendum  et  quasi,  alienandum  et  quidquid  ipsi  domino 
Comiti  et  suis  heredibus  placuerit  faciendum.     Et  versa  vice  dictus 
dominus  Comes  nominibus  quibus  supra  permutavit  et  ex  causa  per- 
mutacionis  predictorum  donavit,  tradidit  et  concessit  predicto  domino 


Appendix  of  Documents  463 

Ebalo  present!,  petenti  et  recipient!  nominibus  quibus  supra  de  volun- 
tate  et  expresso  consensu  dictorum  Gotifredi  et  Aymoneti  presentium 
volentium,  in  feudum  castrum  ipsius  domini  Comitis  de  Monte-joveto 
Augustensis  dyocesis,  reddibile  quandocumque  dictum  dominum  Co- 
mitem  vel  ejus  heredes  comitatum  tenentes  vel  terram  dicte  vallis  in 
Valle  Auguste  pervenire  contingent,  et  omnes  domos,  turim  (sic)  et 
edificia  omnia  que  habet,  tenet,  possidet  vel  quasi  in  dicto  castro. 
Item,  omnes  homines,  vasallos,  feudatarios,  emphiteotas,  feuda,  juris- 
diciones  altas  et  bassas,  redditus,  servicia,  usagia,  census,  proprietates, 
possessiones,  pedagia,  jura,  servitutes,  vineas,  prata,  nemora  et  res  alias 
universas  quas  et  que  et  quos  idem  dominus  Comes  habet,  tenet, 
possidet  et  quasi,  vel  habere  debet  in  dicto  castro  Montis-joveti  et 
villa  et  in  toto  ejus  territorio  et  districtu  et  generaliter  quidquid  idem 
dominus  Comes  habuit  a  faydico  de  Monte-joveto  cum  omnium  pre- 
dictorum  juribus,  appendiciis,  pertinenciis,  servitutibus,  introytibus, 
exitibus,  aquarum  decursibus,  ripagiis  et  juribus  et  racionibus  aliis 
universis,  excepto  et  retento  sibi  et  suis  heredibus  recepto  quod  sibi 
debetur  in  toto  dicto  castro  et  villa,  ad  habendum,  tenendum,  possi- 
dendum  et  quasi  de  feudo  ipsius  domini  Comitis  reddibili  quoad  dictum 
castrum  ut  supra. 

Et  se  quelibet  pars  modo  predicto  de  rebus  alteri  parti  traditis  et 
permutatis  devestit  et  partem  alteram  presentem  et  recipientem  per 
tradicionem  unius  baculi  investit  et  in  possessionem  et  quasi  mitit  (sic). 
Hoc  acto  inter  partes  predictas  per  pactum  solempni  stipulacione 
valatum,  quod  carte  Augustane  que  amodo  fient  per  homines  de  terra 
Vicecomitis  de  possessionibus  existentibus  in  eorum  terra  et  poderio 
reddantur  et  deliberentur  sicut  deliberantur  et  deliberabantur  alie  carte 
Augustane  que  non  sunt  de  jurisdicione  Vicecomitis.  Tradit  inquam 
dictus  dominus  Comes  dictum  castrum  cum  omnibus  suis  rebus  et 
pertinenciis  ipsius  castri  et  quidquid  habet  in  castro  novo,  que  omnia 
promixit  (sic)  dictus  dominus  Comes  dicto  domino  Ebalo  garantire  et 
defendere  sicut  dominus  feudi  justicia  mediante.  Constituentes  se 
vicisim  (sic)  una  pars  nomine  alterius  possidere  et  quasi  omnia  et 
singula  parti  alteri  permutata,  donee  quelibet  pars  de  rebus  sibi  permu- 
tatis possessionem  vel  quasi  per  se  vel  per  alium  apprehenderit  corpo- 
ralem,  quam  apprehendendi  una  pars  alteri  licentiam  et  auctoritatem 
concessit,  nulla  alterius  persone  licentia  requisita.  Cedentes,  man- 
dantes  et  concedentes  una  pars  alteri  omnia  sua  jura  omnesque  suas 
actiones  personales,  reales,  mistas,  civiles,  precorias,  rei  persecutorias  et 
alias  quascumque  cuilibet  parti  in  rebus  per  ipsam  permutatis  com- 
petencia,  competitura,  competentes,  competituras,  in  predictis  et  oca- 
sione  predictorum.  Et  una  pars  alteram  procuratricem  constituit  ut  in 
rem  suam,  ita  tamen  quod  semper  res  per  ipsum  dominum  Comitem 


464  Appendix  of  Documents 

permutate  sint  et  remaneant  de  feodo  ipsius  domini  Comitis  et  dictum 
castrum  sit  reddibile.  Concedentes  sibi  vicisim  dicte  partes  quod 
quelibet  pars  pro  rebus  sibi  traditis  et  permutatis  possit  agere  deffendere 
et  omnia  facere  que  merita  causarum  desiderant  et  requirunt.  Et  si 
res  per  unam  partem  tradite  plus  valent  aliis  receptis  totum  illud  plus 
valens  sibi  vicisim  donaverunt  donacione  inter  vivos.  Mandantes  et 
precipientes  ambe  partes  per  hoc  publicum  instrumentum  omnibus 
hominibus,  feudatariis,  vasallis,  tenementariis  et  personis  aliis  qui  et 
que  tenentur  vel  sunt  obligati  vel  obligate  ipsis  et  eorum  cuilibet  in 
predictis  vel  ocasione  predictorum  alteri  parti  permutatorum,  quod 
alteri  parti  respondant,  usagient,  solvant,  et  hommagia  faciant  sicut 
ipsi  facere  tenebantur  ante  banc  permutacionem ;  et  ipsos  et  ipsas  ex 
nunc  ad  instanciam  et  requisicionem  mei  notarii  infrascripti  petentis  et 
recipientis  vice  et  nomine  dictorum  hominum  et  personarum  et  omnium 
quorum  interest  et  interesse  posse  (sic)  a  dictis  hommagiis  usagiis  et 
obligationibus  solvut  (sic),  quitant  et  penitus  liberant,  salvo  domino 
Comiti  jure  suo  in  dicto  feudo.  Que  omnia  et  singula  predicta  dicte 
partes  sibi  vicisim  promixerunt  (sic)  per  solempnes  stipulaciones  aten- 
dere,  facere  et  complere  et  nonquam  contrafacere  vel  venire  nee 
contravenienti  consentire,  set  ea  rata  et  firma  perpetuo  habere  et  tenere 
nee  impedimentum  apponere  vel  apposuisse  quominus  predicta  omnia 
et  singula  plenam  habeant  firmitatem;  et  hec  sibi  promixerunt  ut 
supra  sub  expressa  obligacione  et  ypotheca  omnium  bonorum  suorura 
et  ad  sancta  Dei  evangelia  tacta  corporaliter  juraverunt.  Renonciantes 
dicte  partes  specialiter  et  expressim  et  per  pactum  soUempni  stipulacione 
valatum  certiorate  exceptioni  doli  mali  metus  et  infectum  conditioni, 
sine  causa  et  ex  injusta  causa,  obligacioni  libelli  et  cujuslibet  peticionis 
copie  et  transcripto  hujus  presentis  instrumenti,  et  omni  dilationi  legali 
et  judiciali,  et  omni  excepcioni,  deffensioni,  privilegio  impetrato  et 
impetrando  et  omnibus  consuetudinibus  Vallis  Auguste,  ita  quod 
omnes  pro  innumeratis  habeantur,  et  permutacioni  non  facte  et  non 
legitime  facte,  et  omni  juri  canonico  et  civili  quibus  mediantibus  possent 
venire  contra  predicta  vel  aliquid  de  predictis. 

Et  fuit  actum  inter  partes  predictas  quod  de  predictis  fiant  duo 
publica  instrumenta  ejusdem  tenoris  unum  manu  mei  notarii  infra- 
scripti et  aliud  manu  Guillelmi  Loion  publici  notarii,  et  quod  presens 
instrumentum  sigillis  partium  sigilletur  quibus  sigillis  integris  manentibus 
aut  ipsis  fractis,  abolitis  vel  ruptis,  nichilominus  instrumenta  plenam 
habeant  firmitatem.  Actum  fuit  hoc  in  civitate  Auguste  in  domo 
episcopali.  Testes  ad  predicta  fuerunt  vocati  et  rogati,  dominus 
Nicholaus  Dei  gratia  Augustensis  episcopus,  dominus  Petrus  de  Tora 
Decanus  Sedunensis,  dominus  Humbertus  de  Luyrion,  dominus  Ro- 
dulphus  Sorioz  milites,  dominus  Amblardus  de  Intermontibus  legum 


Appendix  of  Documents  465 

professor,  et  magister  Petrus  de  Cellanova  phisicus  died  domini  Comitis. 
Et  ego  Vullielmus  de  Bons  publicus  notarius  sacri  palacii  qui  banc 
cartam  rogatus  a  partibus  ad  opus  dicti  domini  Comitis  scripsi  fideliter 
et  signavi.  In  quorum  omnium  robur  et  testimonium  nos  dictus 
Comes  et  nos  dictus  Ebalus,  Gotifredus  et  Aymonetus  sigilla  nostra 
huic  presenti  instrumento  duximus  apponenda.     Datum  ut  supra.    S.  T. 

Four  seals  are  attached,  of  Amadeus  V,  Ebal,  Geoffrey  and  Aymonet. 

[Original:  Arch,  di  Stato,  Turin,  Cite  et Diiche  d'Aoste,  Paq.  ii.  No.  5.] 

IX.     Recognition  of  Nantelm,  Sire  de  Miolans,  to  Count  Thomas  (?). 

[Published  by  Dufour,  Miola?is,  pnson  d'etat,  Mem.  Soc.  Sav.  d'Hist. 
et  d'Arch.  xviii.  p.  377.  The  genuineness  of  this  document  and  the 
meaning  of  No.  X  have  been  disputed  by  Ct  A.  de  Foras,  Armorial  et 
Nobiliaire...de  Savoie,  iv,  p.  50-3  (Miolans,  Annex  C),  in  the  interests 
of  the  immediacy  of  the  Viscounty  of  Maurienne  held  by  the  great 
family  of  De  la  Chambre.  His  arguments  may  be  summarized  as 
follows  :  (i)  Doc.  IX  is  not  genuine.  Its  terms  are  strange.  There  is 
no  date  or  name  of  notary  or  seal ;  (ii)  X  refers  only  to  a  Viscounty  of 
Aiguebelle,  which  is  not  elsewhere  mentioned  in  a  genuine  document 
and  was  perhaps  an  empty  claim  ;  (iii)  The  De  la  Chambre  documents 
from  1309  on  show  (a)  that  they  then  held  their  viscounty  in  chief  from 
the  Count;  {b)  thdii  predecessors  of  Viscount  Richard  (1309)  had  done 
so;  (c)  that  the  De  la  Chambre  in  1221  already  held  La  Chambre  and 
the  viscounty  by  hereditary  right ;  {d)  that  they  were  tenants  in  chief 
in   1252. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  following  counter-arguments  meet  and  are 
more  cogent  than  those  of  De  Foras.  (i)  The  oddity  of  Doc.  IX,  an 
early  recognition,  is  a  ground  for  believing  in  it.  There  is  nothing 
anachronous  in  it ;  but  the  later  stereotyped  form  is  not  yet  reached. 
There  is  no  reason  why  a  later  forger  should  not  use  the  later  regular 
form.  We  may  compare  the  similar  character  of  the  Aostan  Docu- 
ments I  and  II  above.  The  script  appears  to  be  early  thirteenth 
century.  Though  the  seal,  as  so  often,  is  lost,  the  attachment  for  it 
remains,  (ii)  Doc.  X  I  read  as  referring  to  the  Viscounty  of  Camera 
(La  Chambre),  and  not  only  to  that  of  Aiguebelle.  Here,  I  think, 
Dufour  made  a  slip  in  transcribing  a  damaged  word.  See  below,  p.  468. 
Thus  it  confirms  IX's  statement.  That  the  Viscounty  of  Aiguebelle 
really  existed  in  the  early  thirteenth  century  is  shown  {a)  by  the  title 
Vicecomes  borne  by  Nantelm  de  Miolans  in  1189  (see  above,  p.  443, 
n.  2),  and  {b)  by  the  fact  that  the  Viscounty  of  Maurienne  held  by  the 
De  la  Chambre  by  De  Foras'  own  evidence  (see  above,  p.  443,  n.  2) 
only  extended  over  part  of  the  County  of  Maurienne.  The  analogy  and 
explanation  of  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  similar  viscountship  (first  in 

p.  o.  30 


466  Appendix  of  Documents 

sub-tenancy,  then  in  chief)  held  by  the  De  Mascot  in  Tarentaise  [see 
Docs.  XI,  XII  and  XIII  and  above,  pp.  443-4].  (iii)  It  is  quite 
possible  that  Richard  de  la  Chambre's  predecessors  held  the  viscounty 
of  Maurienne  in  chief  some  time  after  1279  (^^^  Doc.  XVI  and  below). 
Exactly  the  same  thing  happened  to  the  De  Mascot  in  Tarentaise  when 
the  De  Briangon,  the  original  Viscounts-in-chief,  were  bought  out. 
While  the  De  la  Chambre  were  vassals  of  the  De  Miolans,  their 
viscounty  would  still  be  hereditary ;  that  is  a  fact  which  does  not  bear 
on  the  discussion.  The  fief  "  quod  albergum  de  Camera  ("  the  House 
of  La  Chambre")  tenet  ab  eo"  (Count  of  Savoy)  in  1252  need  not  be 
the  Viscounty.  In  fact  we  have  a  recognition  (Doc.  XVI  below), 
date  14  Dec.  1279,  whereby  John  Sire  de  la  Chambre,  the  father  of 
Richard,  acknowledges  that  he  holds  Cuines  and  his  land  between 
Argentine  and  La  Chapelle  from  the  Count,  but  makes  no  reference  to 
the  Viscounty  of  Maurienne  or  castle  of  La  Chambre.  Lastly  the  fact 
that  in  1252  the  Count  adjudicates  on  the  rights  which  among  other 
rights  the  De  la  Chambre  claimed  as  Viscounts  as  against  the  Bishop 
and  Canons  of  Maurienne  does  not  mean  that  the  De  la  Chambre  held 
the  Viscounty  immediately  from  the  Count.  The  De  Miolans  could  only 
enfeoff  the  Viscounty  :  they  could  not  enlarge  or  adjudicate  on  its  func- 
tions and  rights.     That  was  the  Count's  prerogative. 

Hence  I  hold  IX  to  be  genuine,  and  accept  its  evidence  for  the 
existence  and  status  of  the  two  Viscountships.] 

Nos,  dominus  Nantelmus  Meolani,  plenus  sanitate  et  prosperitate 
et  bona  memoria,  recognoscimus  a  domino  nostro  Comiti  {sic)  Sabaudie 
et  Marchioni  {sic)  in  Ytalia  feodum  quod  ab  ipso  tenemus.  Videlicet, 
castellum  Meolani  et  totum  mandamentum  ipsius,  et  dimidium  Podium- 
gros  cum  appendiciis  ejusdem,  et  castellum  de  Camera  cum  appendiciis 
ejusdem  et  vicecomitatum  Mauryanne  quern  dominus  Camere  tenet  [a] 
nobis  a  villa  que  dicitur  Aspera  usque  Pal  Bonizoni,  et  vicecomitatum 
Aquebelle  ab  Aspera  usque  ad  Grossam...\  et  quidcumque  habemus 
apud  Aquambellam  et  in  mandamento  ejusdem  salvis  Urteriis,  et  quid- 
cumque habemus  ad  Bonum-vilaret,  et  in  Monte-cinant^  unum  feodum 
quod  debet  ipsi  domino  Comiti  decern  solidos  Segusinorum  de  placito, 
et  item  quidquid  tenemus  ad  Sanctum  Micaelem  ab  aqua  versus  villam 
et  Sanctum  Stephanum  de  Cuina  et  Sanctum  Rumiei  (??),  quas  duas 
parrochias  dominus  de  Camera  tenet  a  nobis,  et  quidquid  tenemus  ad 
Gresiacum  juxta  Monte-lous.  Hec  superius  dicta  recognoscimus  a 
domino  nostro  Comiti  {sic)  supradicto  et  eadem  recognovimus  patri  e 
{sic)  ejus.  Et  hec  dicimus  super  fideUtate  quam  eidem  fecimus,  et  non 
recordamus   quod   aliqua   alia   teneamus   ab    eodem    domino    Comite 

1  Dufour  read  "Grossam  grangiam." 

2  Dufour  read  "einant." 


Appendix  of  Documents  467 

Sabaudie ;  et  item  dicimus  super  fidelitate  quam  eidem  fecimus  quod,  si 
aliquo  tempore  possemus  reminisci  quod  aliquod  aliud  feodum  ab  ipso 
teneremus,  ipsi  totum  libenter  recognosceremus,  et  si  dictus  dominus 
Comes  posset  aliud  invenire  nobis  multum  (?)  placeret.  Et  de  rebus 
istis  supranominatis  debemus  ipsi  domino  Comiti  Sabaudie  xiii  libras 
Segusinorum  de  placito;  et  item  inde  fecimus  patri  ejus  et  hominium 
ligidum  tanquam  bono  domino  et  beato.  In  cujus  rei  testimonium 
presens  scriptum  sigilli  nostri  munimine  fecimus  roborari. 

Seal  now  lost. 

[Original :  Arch,  di  Stato,  Turin,  Prov.  de  Savoie,  xiv.,  Miolans, 
No.  I.] 

X.     Recognition  of  Antelm  de  Miolans,  16  June  1263  and  1273. 

[Published  by  Dufour,  Miolans,  prison  d'etat,  Mem.  Soc.  Sav. 
d'Hist.  et  d'Arch.  xviii.  p.  380.  See  introductory  note  to  No.  IX. 
Abstract  in  Wurstemberger,  iv.  p.  439.  There  is  a  difficulty  about  the 
date.  The  Bishop  of  Belley  in  his  covering  letter  gives  13  August  1273; 
Antelm's  recognition  appears  to  have  16  June  1263.  Since  Count 
Philip,  mentioned  in  the  Bishop's  letter,  succeeded  in  May  1268, 
Wurstemberger  corrects  Antelm's  document  to  16  June  1268.  But 
Ind.  VI.  is  right  for  1263.  I  conclude,  therefore,  that  Antelm's  recog- 
nition is  copied  from  one  made  to  Count  Peter  II  in  1263,  and  that  the 
latter  date  has  slipped  into  the  new  act.  I  cannot  identify  the  docu- 
ment before  us  with  the  abstract  given  of  it  by  Menabrea,  Origines 
Jeodales,  p.  396-7,  and  think  that  Menabrea,  who  did  not  see  the  actual 
document,  was  led  by  his  authority  to  substitute  a  later  recognition.] 

Nos,  Berlio  Dei  gratia  Bellicensis  episcopus,  notum  facimus  universis 
presentes  litteras  inspecturis,  quod  Antelmus  dominus  Miolani  in  nostra 
presencia  constitutus  recognovit  illustri  viro  domino  Philippe  Sabaudie 
et  Burgundie  Comiti  feudum  quod  ab  ipso  tenet  prout  in  quodam 
instrumento  publico  cujus  tenor  talis  est  plenius  continetur.  Anno 
Domini  m°  cc"^  sexagesimo  tercio  Indictione  sexta  xvi  Kalendas  Julii, 
Antelmus  dominus  de  Miolans  recognovit  quod  ipse  est  homo  ligius 
domini  Comitis  Sabaudie  et  tenet  ab  eo  Miolans  cum  omnibus  perti- 
nenciis  ipsius  castri  quas  tenet  in  dominio  suo.  Item  tenet  de  eo 
castrum  de  Camera  et  vicecomitatum  Aquebelle  in  villa  et  de  manda- 
mento  cum  omnibus  pertinenciis  dictorum  castri  et  vicecomitatus. 
Item  tenet  medietatem  de  Podio-grosso.  Item  dicit  quod  ipse  tenet... 
viras  (?),  stratas,  fortunas,  justicias  et  dominium.  Item  aquas  et 
aquarum  decursus  et  nemora  nigra,  regalia  ville  de  Miolans  et  quicquid 
potest  ad  dominium  pertinere.  Et  debet  homagium,  quod  et  fecit,  et 
viginti  quinque  libras  fortium  veterum  de  placito  de  predicto  feudo.  Et 
tenet  de  ipso  Antelmo  dominus  de  Camera  castrum  ipsum  de  Camera 

30—2 


468  Appendix  of  Documents 

et  vicecomitatum  de  Camera^  a  monte  de  Aspera  usque  ad  Pal  Boniton. 
Medietatem  vero  castri  de  Podio-grosso  tenet  Wiffredus  frater  suus  pro 
porcione  sua.  Dick  eciam  quod  quando  venit  ad  venationem  Comitis 
debet  capere  unum  frustum  de  venatione  et  pro  eo  debet  capellum 
unum  in  mutatione  domini.  Actum  est  hoc  in  castro  Montismeliani, 
ubi  fuerunt  vocati  testes  et  rogati  dominus  Amedeus  de  Gavilla  (?), 
Willelmus  del  Morer  (?),  dominus  Hugo  de  Peypia,  dominus  Humbertus 
de  Seysello,  dominus  Petrus  de  Aquablanchia,  dominus  Martinus  de 
Foresta.  Item  tenet  quicquid  domini  de  Sancto  Michaele  tenent  ab 
eo.  Et  dominus  Comes  ipsum  Antelmum  de  dicto  feudo  investivit. 
Ego  Jacobus  Barberius  sacri  palacii  et  Comitis  Sabaudie  notarius  et 
scriptor  scripsi  rogatus  et  tradidi  feliciter.  In  cujus  rei  testimonium 
sigillum  nostrum  presenti  transcripto  duximus  apponendum.  Actum 
apud  Castellarium  Valogiis,  dominica  ante  festum  Assumptionis  Beate 
Marie  Virginis,  anno  Domini  m°  cc°  septuagesimo  tertio. 

Seal  of  the  Bishop  is  attached. 

[Original:  Arch,  di  Stato,  Turin,  Province  de  Savoie,  xiv.,  Miolans, 
No.  2.] 

XI.     Inquisition  re  the  viscounty  of  Tarentaise,  19  May  1276. 

Inquisicio  facta  per  dominum  P.  de  Langes  militem  baillivum  de 
juribus  vicecomitatus  Tarentasie. 

Dominus  Petrus  de  Bioleto  miles,  testis  juratus  et  interrogatus,  dicit 
quod  vidit  per  lunga  tempora  quod  dominus  Brianzonis  ratione  vice- 
comitatus consuevit  percipere  et  levare  in  Tarentasia  tertiam  partem 
bannorum  omnium  que  levantur  in  Tarentasia  occasione  banni  et 
laudum  (or  laudemiorum)  et  venduarum,  exceptis  tamen  bannis  que 
levantur  pro  cavalcatis  domini  Comitis.  Si  tamen  dominus  Comes 
aliqua  percipit  in  suis  hominibus  absque  offensa  facta,  in  eis  nichil 
percipit  Vicecomes.  (Excepto  eciam  albergo  de  Vileta  in  quo  non 
percipitur  vicecomitatus  nee  in  albergo  del  Diders  preterquam  in 
domino  P.  Diderii)^.  Interrogatus  si  qui  sunt  homines  in  Tarentasia 
qui  ad  dictum  dominum  Brianzonis  pertineant  racione  vicecomitatus, 
dicit  quod  audivit  dici  pluries  quod  albergum  Hugonis  de  Mascot  et 
albergum  Petri  Raver  pertinent  ad  albergum  Brianzonis  racione  vice- 
comitatus et  quod  ipsi  manulevare  consueverunt  domino  Brianzonis  in 
Tarentasia  ea  que  necessaria  erant  eidem  domino  Brianzonis.  Inter- 
rogatus si  avenagium  et  fenatagium  quod  percipitur  per  dominum 
Brianzonis  in  Tarentasia  seu  per  ejus  familiares  in  Tarentasia  levatur 
racione  vicecomitatus,  dicit  quod  nescit  pro  certo  si  racione  vice- 
comitatus   levatur,    melius    tamen   credit    quod   levatur   racione   vice- 

^  Dufour  read:  "vicecomitatum  predictum."    But  I  think  "de  Cam(era)"  is  clear. 
2  These  words  are  added  at  the  end  of  Peter  de  Bioley's  evidence. 


Appendix  of  Documents  469 

comitatus  quam  alia  causa,  quia  pro  majori  parte  levatur  in  hominibus 
domini  Comitis.  Interrogatus  si  scit  quod  illi  xl  s.  quos  percipit 
dominus  Brianzonis  in  tallia  casamenti  percipiuntur  racione  vice- 
comitatus,  dicit  quod  sic  et  ad  vicecomitatum  pertinent.  Requisitus 
qualiter  scit,  dicit  quod  vidit  quod  Dominus  Brianzonis  quondam  ei 
dixit  quod  levaret  dictam  tailliam  et  quidam  de  suis  familiaribus  dixit 
eidem  domino  Brianzonis  :  non  permitatis  (sic)  levare  taillias  Petro  de 
Bioleto  quia  ibi  percipitis  circa  xl  s.  quos  possetis  amitere  si  super  hoc 
avideret  {sic)  gentes  domini  Comitis.  Interrogatus  si  scit  quod  illi  xx 
sol.  quos  percipit  dominus  Brianzonis  in  tallia  Augusti  que  levatur  a 
Saxo  inferius  et  illi  xx  sol.  quos  percipit  dominus  Brianzonis  in  borgesia 
de  Ayma  pertinent  ad  vicecomitatum  et  si  racione  vicecomitatus  eos 
percipit,  dicit  quod  sic.  Requisitus  qualiter  scit,  dicit  quod  a  multis 
audivit  dici  quod  predicta  percipit  dominus  Brianzonis  racione  vice- 
comitatus. Et  pro  certo  credit  quod  illud  bladum  quod  levatur  per 
dominum  Brianzonis,  et  porterium  et  clavigerium  suum  apud  Tessan 
levatur  racione  vicecomitatus  et  de  vicecomitatu  sunt.  Item  dicit  quod 
souteria  de  Vilar  Ullie  pertinet  ad  dictum  dominum  Brianzonis  racione 
vicecomitatus.  Interrogatus  qualiter  scit,  dicit  quod  multotiens  vidit 
dominum  Brianzonis  litem  habere  de  dicta  souteria  et  vidit  pluries 
dictam  souteriam  ei  reddi  racione  vicecomitatus. 

Dominus  Boso  de  Salino,  testis  juratus  et  interrogatus,  dicit  quod 
verum  est  quod  dominus  Brianzonis  racione  vicecomitatus  consuevit 
percipere  terciam  partem  bannorum  et  obvencionum  laudum  et  ven- 
duarum  in  Tarentasia,  exceptis  tamen  bannis  que  levantur  pro  caval- 
catis  domini  Comitis  in  quibus  nichil  percipitur  racione  vicecomitatus. 
Requisitus  qualiter  scit,  dicit  quod  sic  vidit  uti  per  lunga  tempora 
dominum  Brianzonis — Excepto  albergo  de  Vileta  in  quo  vicecomitatus 
non  percipitur  nee  in  albergo  delz  Diders  preterquam  in  domino 
P.  Dider'. — Interrogatus  si  scit  quod  avenagium  et  fenatagium  que 
percipiuntur  per  dominum  Brianzonis  levantur  racione  vicecomitatus, 
dicit  quod  nescit,  sed  melius  credit  quod  levantur  et  quod  dominus 
Brianzonis  predictum  avenagium  et  fenatagium  percipit  racione  vice- 
comitatus quam  alia  causa.  Interrogatus  si  scit  quod  illi  xx  s.  quos 
percipit  dominus  Brianzonis  de  taillia  casamenti  et  illi  xx  s.  quos 
percipit  de  taillia  Augusti  et  illi  xx  s.  quos  percipit  in  borgesia  de  Ayma 
pertinent  ad  vicecomitatum,  dicit  quod  sic.  Requisitus  qualiter  scit, 
dicit  quod  hoc  pro  certo  credit  et  audivit  hoc  multociens  dici  a  mis- 
tralibus  domini  Brianzonis  qui  predicta  levabant  nomine  ipsius,  et  ab 
eis  eciam  multociens  audivit  dici  quod  bladum  quod  levatur  apud 
Tessan  per  dominum  Brianzonis  et  familiam  ejus  pertinent  (sic)  ad  eum 

^  Added  at  end  of  Boso  de  Salins'  evidence. 


470  Appendix  of  Documents 

racione  vicecomitatus.  Interrogatus  si  aliqui  sunt  nobiles  vel  ignobiles 
in  Tarentasia  qui  sint  homines  vel  homagia  debeant  domino  Brianzonis 
racione  vicecomitatus,  dicit  quod  audivit  dici  quod  Hugo  de  Mascot  et 
Petrus  Raver  ad  ipsum  dominum  Brianzonis  racione  vicecomitatus 
pertinent.  Tamen  tenent  ab  ipso  domino  Brianzonis  feuda  que  non 
sunt  de  vicecomitatu.  Et  ideo  pro  certo  nescit  utrum  pertineant  ad 
vicecomitatum  vel  non.  Interrogatus  si  scit  quod  souteria  de  Villar 
UUie  pertineat  ad  ipsum  dominum  Brianzonis  racione  vicecomitatus 
dicit  quod  credit,  quia  audivit  dici  ab  Hugone  de  Mascot  quod  dicta 
souteria  pertinet  ad  dominum  Brianzonis  racione  vicecomitatus  et 
racione  vicecomitatus  earn  tenet. 

Dominus  Theobaldus  de  Tors,  testis  juratus  et  interrogatus,  dicit 
quod  verum  est  quod  dominus  Brianzonis  racione  vicecomitatus  con- 
suevit  percipere  terciam  partem  bannorum  et  obvencionum  laudum 
et  venduarum  in  Tarentasia,  excepto  albergo  domini  delz  Diders 
preterquam  dominus  P.  Dider,  et  albergo  de  Vileta,  et  exceptis  bannis 
que  levantur  pro  cavalcatis  domini  Comitis  in  quibus  nichil  percipit 
Vicecomes.  Interrogatus  qualiter  scit,  dicit  quod  de  predictis  per 
lunga  tempora  sic  vidit  uti  dominum  Brianzonis.  Interrogatus  si  scit 
quod  souteria  de  Vilar  Ullie  pertineat  ad  ipsum  dominum  Brianzonis 
racione  vicecomitatus,  dicit  quod  sic.  Requisitus  qualiter  scit,  dicit 
quia  Vicecomes  mistralis  est  ibidem  racione  vicecomitatus  et  debet 
recuperare  tallias  casamenti  et  de  hoc  sic  eum  uti  vidit.  Super  omnibus 
aliis  requisitus,  dicit  se  nichil  aliud  inde  scire  nisi  ut  supra  dixit. 

Dominus  Gunterius  Roillait,  testis  juratus  et  interrogatus,  dicit  idem 
quod  predictus  dominus  Theobaldus,  hoc  mutato  quod  in  albergo  delz 
Diders  preterquam  in  albergo  domini  P.  Dider  non  percipitur  vice- 
comitatus et  tantum  plus  quod  Hugo  de  Mascot  est  homo  domini 
Brianzonis  tam  racione  vicecomitatus  quam  pro  alio  feudo  quod  ab 
eo  tenet.  Interrogatus  qualiter  scit,  dicit  quod  vidit  ipsum  Hugonem 
homagium  facere  domino  Brianzonis.  Et  credit  quod  illos  xx  s.  quos 
percipit  dominus  Brianzonis  de  taillia  Augusti  percipit  racione  vice- 
comitatus. Super  omnibus  aliis  requisitus,  dicit  se  nichil  aliud  inde 
scire  nisi  ut  supra  dixit. 

Anselmetus  de  Petra,  testis  juratus  et  interrogatus,  dicit  quod 
dominus  Brianzonis  racione  vicecomitatus  consuevit  percipere  in 
Tarentasia  terciam  partem  bannorum  et  obvencionum  laudum  et 
venduarum  levata  parte  domini  Comitis  integraliter.  Interrogatus 
qualiter  scit,  dicit  quod  de  hiis  vidit  uti  dominum  Brianzonis  per  xv 
annos  et  plus.  Interrogatus  si  scit  quod  avenagium  et  fenatagium 
quod  percipitur  per  dominum  Brianzonis  percipitur  racione  vice 
comitatus,  dicit  quod  sic.  Requisitus  qualiter  scit,  dicit  quod  audivit 
dici  a  multis  de  terra  Tarentasie;  et  audivit  eciam  dici  quod  datum 


Appendix  of  Documents  471 

fuit  illud  avenagium  et  fenatagium  domino  Brianzonis  a  domino  Comite 
Sabaudie  quondam.  Interrogatus  si  scit  quod  illi  xl  s.  quos  percipit 
dominus  Brianzonis  de  tallia  casamenti,  et  illi  xx  s.  quos  percipit  de 
tallia  Augusti  pertinent  ad  ipsum  dominum  Brianzonis  racione  vice- 
comitatus,  dicit  quod  sic.  Requisitus  qualiter  scit,  dicit  quod  ipse 
dominus  Brianzonis  est  mistralis  casamenti  racione  vicecomitatus.  Et 
pro  eo  quod  ibi  percipit  debet  custodire  captos  et  justiciam  facere  pro 
domino  Comite  et  offendentes  pignorare.  Interrogatus  qualiter  scit, 
dicit  quod  de  predictis  sic  vidit  uti  dominum  Brianzonis  per  xv  annos 
et  ipse  ipsemet  pro  domino  Brianzonis  per  xv  annos  usus  fuit  predictis. 
Interrogatus  si  scit  quod  souteria  de  Vilare  Ullie  pertinet  ad  dominum 
Brianzonis  racione  vicecomitatus,  dicit  quod  sic.  Requisitus  qualiter 
scit,  dicit  quod  dicta  souteria  est  de  mistralia  casamenti  que  spectat  ad 
vicecomitatum,  et  hoc  publicum  est  et  manifestum  in  terra  Tarentasie. 
Super  aliis  omnibus  interrogatus,  dicit  se  nichil  aliud  inde  scire  nisi  ut 
supra  dixit. 

Luysetus  de  Tors,  testis  juratus  et  interrogatus,  dicit  quod  vidit 
quod  dominus  Brianzonis  racione  vicecomitatus  consuevit  percipere 
in  Tarentasia  terciam  partem  bannorum  et  obvencionum,  laudum, 
venduarum,  et  recipere  cauciones  nobilium  excepto  albergo  de  Vileta  ; 
et  vidit  quod  consuevit  percipere  xx  s.  de  tallia  Augusti  pro  labore  suo 
eo  quod  recuperat  dictam  talliam.  Item,  audivit  dici  ab  Hugone  de 
Mascot  quod  ipse  est  homo  domini  Brianzonis  racione  vicecomitatus. 
Super  omnibus  aliis  requisitus,  dicit  se  nichil  aliud  inde  scire  nisi  ut 
supra  dixit. 

Villermus  Saillet,  testis  juratus  et  interrogatus,  dicit  quod  vidit 
quod  dominus  Brianzonis  racione  vicecomitatus  consuevit  percipere 
terciam  partem  bannorum  laudum  et  venduarum.  Super  omnibus  aliis 
interrogatus,  dicit  se  nichil  aliud  inde  scire. 

Luysetus  Jordan,  testis  juratus  et  interrogatus,  dicit  quod  vidit 
quod  dominus  Brianzonis  racione  vicecomitatus  consuevit  percipere 
in  Tarentasia  terciam  partem  bannorum,  laudum  et  venduarum  et 
obvencionum,  et  avenam  quam  percipit  a  Saxo  superius  percipit  racione 
vicecomitatus.  Requisitus  qualiter  scit,  dicit  quod  ipsemet  levavit 
dictam  avenam  pro  domino  P.  quondam  domino  Brianzonis  racione 
vicecomitatus.  Interrogatus  si  qui  sunt  nobiles  in  Tarentasia  qui  sint 
homines  domini  Brianzonis  racione  vicecomitatus,  dicit  quod  Hugo 
de  Mascot  et  ejus  participes  tam  racione  vicecomitatus  quam  pro  alio 
feudo  quod  tenent  a  domino  Brianzonis  sunt  homines  domini  Brianzonis. 
Interrogatus  qualiter  scit,  dicit  quod  audivit  eos  sic  confiteri  et  recogni- 
tionem  inde  fieri  (?)  vidit.  Interrogatus  si  dominus  Brianzonis  racione 
vicecomitatus  percipit  illos  xl  s.  quos  percipit  de  tallia  casamenti  et 
illos  XX  s.  quos  percipit  de  tallia  Augusti,  dicit  quod  sic.     Requisitus 


472  Appendix  of  Documents 

qualiter  scit,  dicit  quod  a  multis  audivit  dici,  et  vidit  predicta  levari 
per  triginta  annos  racione  vicecomitatus.  Dicit  eciam  quod  quidquid 
dominus  Brianzonis  percipit  in  tallia  burgensium  de  Ayma  percipit 
racione  vicecomitatus.  Interrogatus  qualiter  scit,  dicit  quod  vidit  sic 
uti  per  triginta  annos  et  plus  quod  ea  que  percipit  ibi  dominus 
Brianzonis  percipit  racione  vicecomitatus.  Et  audivit  dici  quod 
souteria  de  Vilar  Oger  et  de  Mascot  pertinet  ad  dominum  Brianzonis 
racione  vicecomitatus.  Super  aliis  omnibus  interrogatus,  dicit  se  nichil 
aliud  inde  scire  nisi  ut  supra  dixit.  Item  dicit  quod  albergum  de 
Vileta  non  debet  vicecomitatum,  nee  albergum  Dideriorum  preterquam 
dominus  P.  Dider. 

Rodulfus  Dider,  testis  juratus  et  interrogatus,  dicit  idem  quod 
proximus  hoc  mutato  quod  de  illis  xl  s.  qui  percipiuntur  de  tallia 
casamenti  et  de  illis  xx  s.  qui  percipiuntur  de  tallia  Augusti  nichil 
scit  nee  levavit  aliqua  de  predictis. 

Petrus  Jordan,  testis  juratus  et  interrogatus,  dicit  quod  vidit  quod 
dominus  Brianzonis  racione  vicecomitatus  consuevit  percipere  in 
Tarentasia  terciam  partem  bannorum,  placitorum  et  venduarum.  Super 
aliis  interrogatus,  dicit  quod  nichil  aliud  inde  scire. 

Hugo  de  Mascot,  testis  juratus  et  interrogatus,  dicit  quod  dominus 
Brianzonis  a  Saxo  superius  percipere  consuevit  terciam  partem  omnium 
bannorum  racione  vicecomitatus,  videlicet  quando  dominus  Comes  levat 
bannum  Ix  sol.  vicecomes  deinde  levat  xxx  s.  Item  percipit  Vicecomes 
racione  vicecomitatus  terciam  partem  placitorum,  laudum  et  venduarum 
et  obvencionum,  excepto  tamen  quod  si  quis  condito  testamento 
legaverit  aliquid  domino  Comiti  in  eo  nichil  percipit  Vicecomes.  Si 
tamen  dominus  Comes  rumperet  testamentum  et  bona  defuncti  caperet 
in  eis  Vicecomes  caperet  partem  suam.  Et  eodem  modo  percipit  in 
terra  quam  tenet  domina  Fucigniaci  in  Tarentasia.  Et  si  quis  hominum 
se  ipsum  interfecerit  in  bonis  suis  Vicecomes  terciam  partem  percipit. 
Et  si  aliquid  reperitur  in  terra  quod  fortuito...reperiatur  et  in  nullius 
bonis  sit,  Vicecomes  in  illo  reperto  terciam  partem  percipit.  Item, 
percipit  racione  vicecomitatus  terciam  partem  in  tallia  burgensium 
de  Ayma.  Et  in  ilia  tercia  parte  mistralis  domini  Brianzonis  unum 
burgensem  habet,  ilium  videlicet  quem  duxerit  eligendum.  Item 
percipit  racione  vicecomitatus  in  nundinis  Sancti  Mauricii  terciam 
partem  leyde,  in  quo  vicecomitatu  idem  Hugo  percipit  vicecomitatum 
de  quinque  sol.  et  a  quinque  sol.  inferius,  et  a  quinque  sol.  superius 
tercium  decimum  denarium.  Item  mistralis  Vicecomitis  recuperare 
tallias  casamenti  et  recuperare  condempnaciones  nobilium  et  recipere 
satisdaciones  ab  eis  et  in  dictis  talliis  percipit  mistralis  Vicecomitis  xx 
sol.  forcium  et  debet  Vicecomes  custodire  captos  et  facere  de  ipsis 
justiciam  ad  expensas  captorum.      Interrogatus  qualiter  scit  predicta, 


Appendix  of  Documents  473 

dicit  quod  tarn  ipse  quam  pater  ejus  predictum  vicecomitatum  a  Saxo 
superius  tenuerunt  pro  domino  Brianzonis  et  predictis  usi  fuerunt 
spacio  triginta  seu  xl  annorum.  Et  amplius  interrogatus  si  est  homo 
domini  Brianzonis  racione  vicecomitatus,  dicit  quod  tam  racione  vice- 
comitatus  quam  pro  feudo  alio  quod  tenet  a  domino  Brianzonis  est 
homo  ejusdem  domini  Brianzonis.  Interrogatus  si  dominus  Brianzonis 
percipit  illam  avenam  quam  percipit  apud  Tessam  racione  vicecomitatus, 
dicit  quod  nescit.  Item  dicit  quod  in  quolibet  masso  de  terra  ilia  quam 
tenet  domina  Fucigniaci  in  Tarentasia  percipit  Vicecomes  xi  denarios 
annuales  et  in  aliquibus  massis  de  terra  domini  Comitis.  Nescit  tamen 
si  racione  vicecomitatus  dictos  xi  denarios  percipit  in  dictis  massis  vel 
alia  causa.  Super  omnibus  aliis  interrogatus,  dicit  se  nichil  aliud  inde 
scire  nisi  ut  supra  dixit. 

Rodulfus  de  Monte- Valesan,  testis  juratus,  dicit  idem  quod  dictus 
Hugo,  hoc  mutato  quod  ipse  non  est  homo  domini  Brianzonis,  et  de 
tallia  burgensium  de  Ayma  nichil  scit. 

Actum  et  datum  apud  Salinum  die  lune  ante  pentecostum  anno 
Domini  millesimo  cc°lxx°  sexto,  cum  appositione  sigillorum  domini 
P.  de  Langes  baillivi  Sabaudie  et  domini  Hugonis  Ysardi  et  domini 
Theobaldi  de  Tors  et  domini  Petri  de  Bioleto,  qui  in  presenti  in- 
quisicione  apposuerunt  sigilla  sua  in  testimonium  predictorum. 

Four  seal-strings,  on  one  a  seal  preserved. 

[Original;  Arch,  di  Stato,  Turin,  Prov.  de  Tarentaise,  Paq.  i.  No.  i.] 

XII.  Sale  of  the  Viscounty-in-chief  of  Tarentaise  by  John  d'Aigue- 
blanche.  Dean  of  Hereford,  and  his  brother  Aymeric,  15  April,  1279. 
8.  T.  Anno  Domini  millesimo  cc°  lxx°ix°  indictione  vii^  die  lune 
xv°  mensis  Aprilis  coram  testibus  infrascriptis  dominus  Johannes  de 
Aquablancha  decanus  Hereffordensis  pro  se  et  domino  Eymerico  fratre 
suo  cancellario  Hereffordensi  cujus  procurator  est  ut  patet  per  quandam 
patentem  litteram  sigillo  ipsius  domini  Eymerici  sigillatam  cujus  tenor 
inferius  continetur,  sciens,  prudens  et  spontaneus  ex  causa  compo- 
sicionis  facte  ut  dicit  inter  illustrem  virum  dominum  Philippum  Comitem 
Sabaudie  ex  una  parte  et  ipsum  dominum  Johannem  decanum  et 
dominum  Eymericum  cancellarium  Hereffordensem  fratrem  suum  ex 
altera  super  castrum  Briangonis  et  quibusdam  rebus  aliis  quittat,  cedit 
et  concedit,  solvit  et  renunciat  nomine  quo  supra  et  pro  eorum 
heredibus  et  successoribus  mihi  Andree  notario  infrascripto  tamquam 
publice  persona  stipulanti  et  recipienti  nomine  et  vice  dicti  domini 
Comitis  et  ejus  heredum  et  successorum  omnia  jura  omnesque  actiones 
et  rationes  reales  et  personales,  utiles  et  directas,  mixtas  et  contrarias, 
que  et  quos  habent  vel  habere  possunt  seu  habere  videntur  et  sibi 
competunt  aut  competere  possunt   aliqua   ratione  vel   causa   in  vice- 


474  Appendix  of  Documents 

comitatu  Briangonis  et  Tarentasie.  Retento  sibi  in  dicto  vicecomitatu 
in  personis  suis,  heredibus  et  successoribus  suis,  necnon  in  hominibus 
suis  et  heredibus  ipsorum  hominum.  Promitens  {sic)  dictus  dominus 
Johannes  per  stipulacionem  bona  fide  nomine  suo  et  procuratorio 
nomine  dicti  Eymerici  fratris  sui  et  heredum  et  successorum  suorum 
mihi  notario  infrascripto  predicto  nomine  stipulanti  et  recipienti  se  non 
venire  de  cetero  per  se  vel  per  alium  contra  predicta  vel  aliqua  de 
predictis,  liberans  et  quitans  idem  dominus  Johannes  pro  se  et  dicto 
Eymerico  fratre  suo  et  heredibus  eorum  dicto  domino  Comiti  et 
successoribus  suis  jus  quod  habebant  in  dicto  vicecomitatu  occasione 
predecessorum  suorum  vel  cujuscumque  alterius  ratione  vel  causa. 
Faciens  pactum  de  non  petendo  ulterius  aliquid  in  dictis  rebus  vel 
aliqua  earum.  Volens  et  precipiens  idem  dominus  Johannes  pro  se  et 
dicto  Eymerico  fratre  suo  procuratorio  nomine,  quod  omnia  instrumenta 
seu  scripta  publica  vel  privata  que  habent  de  dicto  vicecomitatu  et  que 
possent  reperiri  ex  nunc  in  an  tea  sint  cassa,  vana  et  irrita  et  nullum 
robur  habeant  firmitatis,  salvis  sibi  retentis  in  compositione  supradicta. 
Renuncians  idem  dominus  Johannes  exceptioni  doli  mali,  quod  vi  vel 
metus  causa,  et  infectum,  et  omni  juri  scripto  et  non  scripto  canonico 
et  civili  sibi  competenti  vel  competituro  in  hoc  facto.  Tenor  vero 
predicte  procurationis  talis  est.  Universis  sancte  matris  ecclesie  filiis 
ad  quos  presentes  littere  pervenerint  Eymericus,  cancellarius  Here- 
ffordensis,  filius  quondam  domini  Aymonis  de  Aquablancha  militis, 
salutem  in  Domino  sempiternam.  Noverit  universitas  vestra  quod  ego 
ordino  facio  et  constituo  dilectos  mihi  in  Christ©  dominum  Johannem 
de  Aquablancha  fratrem  meum,  decanum  Hereffordensem,  et  Gonterium 
de  Naves  consanguineum  meum,  certos  nuncios  et  procuratores  meos 
conjunctim  et  divisim,  simul  et  sub  alternatione  ad  recognoscendum 
et  faciendum  fidelitates  et  homagia  et  usagia  debita  domino  (blank  left) 
Comiti  Sabaudie  et  quibuscumque  quibus  ad  hec  teneor  facienda,  et 
ad  petendum  requirendum  et  exigendum  fidelitates  homagia  et  usagia 
a  quibuscumque  personis  tam  nobilibus  quam  innobilibus,  et  ad 
petendum  et  recipiendum  generaliter  et  universaliter  omnia  ilia  que 
mihi  a  quibuscumque  personis  debentur  ex  quibuscumque  causis,  et 
ad  solutiones  et  confessiones  reccipiendas  {sic)  et  faciendas  et  ad 
quascumque  conventiones  transactiones  et  concordias  faciendas  cum 
quibuscumque  et  super  quibuscumque  negotiis  et  causis  et  quibus- 
cumque occasionibus  et  ad  quitationes  liberationes  investituras  et 
fidelitates  faciendas  et  reccipiendas,  et  generaliter  ad  omnia  negotia 
mea  cujuscumque  generis  sint  vel  maneriei  facienda.  Et  ad  omnes 
causas  lites  et  controversias  quas  habeo  vel  habiturus  sum  in  comitatu 
Sabaudie  vel  alibi  cum  quacumque  persona,  coUegio  et  universitate,  tam 
ad   agendum  quam  ad   deffendendum,   et   appellationes    faciendas   et 


Appendix  of  Documents  475 

prosequendas  et  generaliter  ad  omnia  ea  et  singula  facienda  que  merita 
negotiorum  et  causarum  postulant  et  requirunt;  et  ad  sacramenta 
calupmnie  (sic)  et  fidelitatis  et  cujuslibet  alterius  generis  in  animam 
et  super  anima  mea  facienda  et  ad  omnia  ea  et  singula  facienda 
tarn  in  negotiis  quam  in  causis  que  ego  facere  possem  si  presens 
adessem.  Dans  et  concedens  dictis  procuratoribus  meis  simul  et  sub 
alternatione  plenum  et  liberum  et  generale  mandatum  in  omnibus 
negotiis  et  causis  et  plenam  et  liberam  et  generalem  administrationem 
omnium  bonorum  meorum  in  predictis  et  super  predictis  omnibus. 
Et  quicquid  predicti  procuratores  mei  seu  alter  eorumdem  quern 
presentem  esse  contingerit  pro  me  vel  meo  nomine  dixerint  vel  fecerint, 
dixerit  vel  fecerit,  in  predictis  et  super  predictis  et  quocumque  predic- 
torum,  id  totum  ratum  et  firmum  habere  et  tenere  promito  (sic).  Pro 
eisdem  ecciam  (sic)  et  eorum  quolibet  judicatum  solvi  et  de  rato 
habendo  satisdationes  sub  ypotheca  rerum  mearum,  volens  ipsos  ab 
omni  satisdatione  judiciali  relevare,  expono  et  stipulatione  solempni 
promito.  In  cujus  rei  testimonium  presentibus  litteris  in  presencia 
domini  Hugonis  de  Musterio  et  Johannis  de  Ponte,  canonicorum 
Hereffordensium,  et  Henrici  de  Lenthonio  et  Gauffredi  de  Sancto 
Albano  clericorum,  et  Willelmi  de  Bosellis  laici,  qui  vocati  et  rogati 
testes  ad  hoc  fuerunt,  sigillum  meum  apposui,  quod  quidem  sigillum  ipsi 
omnes  et  singuli  recognoverunt.  Datum  Hereffordii  ii°  Kl.  Januarii, 
anno  Domini  millesimo  ducentesimo  lxx°ix°. 

Actum  est  hoc  Aquiani  in  viridario  castri  ejusdem  loci  ubi  testes 
ad  hoc  vocati  et  rogati  fuerunt,  domlnus  Nicholaus  de  Bersatoribus 
Tarentasiensis  archidiaconus,  dominus  Johannes  de  Castellario  miles, 
Magister  Canturinus  physicus,  Aymo  de  Sancto  Triverio  incuratus  de 
Vinnies,  et  Stephanus  de  Sancto  Reneberto,  clerici  domini  Comitis. 
Et  ego  Andreas  Jordan  de  Sec(usia?)  sacri  palatii  et  domini  Comitis 
notarius  hiis  interfui  et  presentem  cartam  scripsi  et  tradidi. 

[Arch,  di  Stato,  Turin,  Prov.  de  Tarentaise,  Paquet  ii.  Briangon, 
No.    2.] 

XIII.  19  Dec.  1294.  Hugh  de  Mascot  surrenders  to  the  Count 
(Amadeus  V)  the  Viscounty  of  Tarentaise  above  Saxum,  and  his 
mestralsies  and  salteria  in  Tarentaise,  reserving  only  the  Viscounty 
and  mestralsy  in  Mascot  and  Hauteville. 

■' Hugo...dat...dicto  domino  Comiti.-.vicecomitatum  et  mistraliam 
a  Sauxo  superius  et  salteria  versoria  superius  versus  vallem  Usere." 

[Arch,  di  Stato,  Turin,  Prov.  de  Tarentaise,  Paq.  11.  Hauteville,  No.  2.] 

XIV.  Extracts  (concerning  the  Viscounty  of  Novalaise)  from  an 
old  catalogue  in  the  Archivio  di  Stato,  Turin,  which  enumerates 
documents,  many  of  which  are  lost. 


476  Appendix  of  Documents 

Sommaire  generale  des  litres  des  fiefs  de  la  Province  de  Savoie 
Propre,  existents  dans  les  Archives  de  Cour  et  de  la  Roiale  Chambre  des 
Comptes  a  Turin  et  dans  celles  du  Chateau  Roial  de  Chambery.    (i  781.) 

Vol.  III.  f.  lOT.  Novalaise  en  Bugey,  Vicomte  et  rentes  feodales 
avec  jurisdiction. 

141 1  8  Nov.,  De  Pelladrut,  noble  Jeannette,  fiUe  de  noble  Aymon 
de  Peladrut,  Seigneur  de  Montferrat,  par  I'autorite  de  noble  Jean  de 
Clermont  son  mary, — 

Reconnoit  tenir  du  fief  du  Prince  Amede  de  Savoye — 

Une  rente  feodale  portant  hommage,  tailles,  servis  et  autres  riere 
divers  territoires  du  mandement  de  Chanaz — 

En  outre  le  droit  de  direct  domaine  sur  les  hommes  et  fiefs — 

Item  la  quatrieme  partie  par  indivis  avec  les  seigneurs  d'Aiguebel- 
lette  [de  Seissel],  et  les  enfants  d'Ant^  de  Virieu-le-grand  [Propositi] — 

du  Vicomte  de  Novalaise  avec  tous  les  droits,  emoluments,  et 
appartenances — 

Item  I'omnimode  jurisdiction,  mere  mixte  empire,  sur  les  hommes 
procedes  d'Henry  de  Briord  acquis  par  le  Seigr""  d'Aiguebellette — 

sous  charge  d'hommage  liege  aud'  Prince,  sauf  la  fidelite  et  hommage 
due  d'ailleurs  au  Comte  de  Savoye. 

Grosse  de  M""  Pierre  de  Bachillard  et  de  Cusinens,  no.  134, 
f.  297,  Arch,  du  Chat,  de  Chambery. 

1445  Propositi,  noble  Louis,  conseigneur  de  la  Maison  forte  de 
Choysel — 

Reconnoit  tenir  en  fief  du  Prince  Louis  de  Savoye — 

en  suivant  la  precedente  reconnaisance  de  noble  Jean  Propositi  es 
mains  de  Pierre  de  Cusinens — 

Tous  les  biens  procedes  de  I'heritage  de  Choisel  que  des  biens  de 
ceux  de  Briord  et  de  ceux  de  Somond — 

Une  rente  feodale,  riere  Lutrin  St  Paul  et  autres  lieux — 

Item  la  quatrieme  partie  du  Vicomte  de  Nouvelaise  dans  les 
chatellanies  d'Yenne  et  Chanaz,  et  tous  les  droits  et  appartenances 
par  indivis  avec  les  pariers — 

Item  Tomnimode  jurisdiction,  mere  et  mixte  empire,  sur  les  hommes 
procedes  d'Henry  de  Briord  par  indivis  avec  les  pariers — 

Sous  charge  d'hommage  liege. 

Grosse  de  M""  Girard  Germanet,  No.  127,  fol.  278,  Arch,  de 
Chateau  de  Chambery — - 

1445,  26  Feb.  De  Seissel,  noble  Pierre,  Seigneur  de  St  Cassin, 
Aiguebellette,  La  Serraz  et  de  Bourdeaux,  et  de  la  maison  forte  de 
Choisel  et  Vicomte  des  d's  lieux  d'Ayguebellette,  Novalaise  et  terre 
d'Yenne — 


Appendix  of  Documents  477 

reconnoit  tenir  en  fief  et  de  I'ancien  paternel  en  suivant  la  precedente 
reconnaissance  de  Pierre  Seyssel  es  mains  de  Pierre  de  Cusinens. 

1°.  une  rente  feodale,  portant  hommes,  hommages,  rentes,  servis, 
jurisdiction  omnimode  et  autres  tributs  riere  Chevelut,  Lutrin,  St  Paul 
et  autres  lieux  du  mandement  d'Yenne — 

2°.     La  Vicomte  dans  Novalaise  et  Chatellaine  d'Yenne  et  Chanaz. 

Lesquelles  choses,  parties  sont  procedees  de  I'heritage  de  Choysel, 
et  parties  acquise  par  les  predecesseurs  d'Henry  de  Briord. 

Grosse  de  M""  Girard  Germanet,  No.  129,  fol.  i,  Arch.  Chat, 
de  Chambery. 

XV.     20  Dec.  1224. 

Convention  entre  le  Comte  Thomas  de  Maurienne  et  Etienne  et 
Bernard  freres  du  Villars  sur  les  differents  qu'il  y  avoit  entre  eux  pour 
egard  des  lieux  de  Festerne  et  la  Combe  de  St  Rambert. 

[Registered  (iv.  No.  57)  and  used  (i.  64)  by  Wurstemberger,  op.  cit.; 
also  used  by  Guichenon,  Hist,  de  la  Bresse  et  du  Bugey,  iv.  217.] 

In  nomine  Domini  nostri  Jehsu  Christi  amen.  Hec  est  forma  pacis 
inter  Comitem  Mauriennensem  ex  una  parte  et  Stephanum  de  Vilario 
et  Bernardum  fratrem  ejus  ex  altera.  De  querela  de  Festerna  et  de  la 
Comba  Sancti  Ragneberti  ita  dictum  est :  quod  pace  facta  et  firmata 
dominus  Comes  ad  requisitionem  Stephani  de  Vilario  diem  eidem  in 
curia  sua  assignabit  loco  competenti  et  curiam  mittet  suspicione  caren- 
tem ;  ad  cujus  cognitionem  jus  suum  sibi  reddet.  De  querela  de  Val 
Chaiyna  ita  dictum  est :  quod  Comes  de  hiis  de  quibus  certus  esset 
quod  ad  Stephanum  de  Vilario  et  ad  illos  de  Rogimont  pertinerent,  eis 
in  pace  restitueret ;  de  hiis  vero  de  quibus  certus  non  esset  ad  cogni- 
tionem nobilium  virorum  A.  de  Breisseu,  M.  de  Vireu,  Guichardi  de 
Freuz  et  Stephani  de  Monte-aureo  eidem  responderet  et  quod  illi  ad 
eos  cognoscerent  pertinere,  eis  in  pace  restitueret.  De  Willelmo  de  la 
Balma  sic  dictum  est :  quod  Comes  eum  et  fratres  ejus  et  nepotes  ab 
hominio  quod  sibi  fecerant  sibimet  absolvit  et  feudum  quod  ab  eo  acce- 
perant  sibi  liberum  dimittit  et  dominus  de  Vilario  et  fratres  ejus  dicto 
Willelmo  et  suis  bonam  pacem  faciunt ;  nee  Comes  nee  filii  sui  hoc 
feudum  de  cetero  adquirere  poterunt,  et  si  Willelmus  de  la  Balma  vel 
sui  feudum  istud  ab  aliquo  acciperent,  Comes  et  filii  ejus  dictum 
Willelmum  sive  fratres  sive  nepotes  ejus  neque  ilium  a  quo  feudum 
acciperent  manutenerent.  Preterea  nichil  quod  ad  dominium  domini 
de  Vilario  et  domini  de  Toria  pertineat  Comes  et  filii  sui  adquirere 
poterunt  vel  acquirentem  manutenere.  Pedagium  suum  quod  Willelmo 
Chabout  et  Hugoni  de  Montmeliant  obligavit  dominus  de  Vilario  a 
proxima  Nativitate  Domini  in  quinque  annos  liberum  habere  debebit. 
Est  autem   annus   ab   incarnatione   Domini   millesimus  ducentesimus 


478  Appendix  of  Documents 

vigesimus  quartus.  Actum  Lugduni  in  vigilia  Sancti  Thome  apostoli. 
Ego  Thomas  Comes  et  Amedeus  et  Aymo  filii  mei  domino  de  Vilario 
at  B[ernardo]  fratri  suo  et  suis,  bonam  pacem  fecimus  et  eam  nos 
bona  fide  tenere  juravimus,  et  alii  fihi  mei  hanc  pacem  laudaverunt. 
Dominus  vero  Lugdunensis,  dominus  Viennensis  et  dominus  Tarentasi- 
ensis  Archiepiscopi,  Grannopolitanensis,  Gebennensis,  Mauriennensis 
et  Bellicensis  Episcopi,  de  mandato  et  voluntate  mea  litteras  suas 
patentes  domino  de  Vilario  et  fratri  suo  dederunt,  quod  si  ego  et  filii 
mei,  quod  absit,  pacem  infringeremus  nee  ad  cognitionem  predictorum 
quattuor  emendare  vellemus,  ipsi  me  et  terram  meam  et  omnes  illos 
et  terras  eorum  qui  de  mandato  meo  pacem  juraverunt  sub  interdicto 
et  excommunicatione  tenerent  donee  pacis  fratura  {sic)  ad  cognitionem 
quattuor  predictorum  nobilium  vel  illorum  quos  ipsi  loco  suo  ponerent 
plenarie  emendata  esset.  Predicti  autem  quattuor  videlicet  A.  de 
Breisseu  et  M.  de  Vireu  qui  sunt  ex  parte  Comitis  et  Guichardus  de 
Freuz  et  Stephanus  de  Monte-aureo,  qui  sunt  ex  parte  domini  de  Vilario 
juraverunt  quod  si  aliqua  questio  super  fractura  pacis  orta  fuerit,  ab 
invicem  requisiti,  loco  tuto  et  competenti  convenient  et  ortam  questio- 
nem  legitime  dififinient  et  decident.  Hanc  autem  pacem  juraverunt 
pro  Comite  et  juramento  promiserunt  domino  de  Vilario  se  satisfac- 
turos,  si  Comes  pacem  frangeret  et  ad  cognitionem  predictorum  quattuor 
emendare  noUet,  dominus  Enricus  pro  quingentis  marchis,  Arbertus  de 
Turre  pro  ducentis  marchis,  dominus  de  Bellojoco  pro  centum  marchis, 
dominus  de  Fucigneu  pro  centum  marchis,  dominus  de  Breisseu  pro 
centum  marchis,  Martinus  de  Vireu  pro  centum  marchis,  Willelmus  de 
Belver  pro  centum  marchis,  Berlio  de  Chambareu  pro  centum  marchis, 
Umbertus  de  Bozosel  pro  centum  marchis,  Siboudus  de  Clarmont  pro 
centum  marchis,  Rodulfus  del  Ga  pro  centum  marchis,  Siboudus  de 
Briort  pro  mille  solidis,  Burno  de  Langes  pro  mille  solidis,  duo  Peronays 
de  Bozosel  pro  centum  libris,  Guigo  de  Maisins  pro  mille  solidis,  Ar- 
bertus de  Bozosel  pro  mille  solidis,  Atenulfus  de  Dentayseu  pro  centum 
Hbris,  Umbertus  de  Saisel  tenetur  pro  mille  solidis  sed  non  juravit, 
Boso  Tsarz  juravit  pro  mille  solidis,  Rodulfus  de  Faverges  pro  mille 
solidis.  Ego  autem  Thomas  Comes  Sabaudie  et  ego  S[tephanus] 
dominus  de  Vilario  hac  carta  audita  et  plenius  intellecta  sicut  in  ea 
continetur,  nos  pacem  fecisse  et  bona  fide  servaturos  esse  jurasse  confi- 
temur  et  in  hujus  rei  perpetuum  testimonium  hanc  cartam  sigillorum 
nostrorum  presentia  communimus. 

[Original :  Archivio  di  Stato,  Turin,  Province  de  Chablais,  Paquet 
III.  Festerne.] 

XVI.     Recognition  of  John,  Sire  de  la  Chambre,  14  Dec.  1279. 

Nos  Anthonius  de  Castello  Judex  Sabaudie  notum  facimus  univer- 
sis,  quod  nobilis  vir  Johannes  dominus  de  Camera  in  nostri  presentia 


Appendix  of  Documents  479 

constitutus  recognovit  et  confessus  fuit  castrum  de  Cuina  cum  appenditiis 
et  pertinentiis  ipsius  castri  ac  mandamentum  ejusdem  esse  de  feudo 
illustris  viri  domini  Philippi  Sabaudie  Comitis.  Recognovit  insuper  et 
confessus  fuit  idem  Johannes  quod  quidquid  tenet  ab  Argentina  usque 
ad  Capellam  excepta  coruata  sua  de  Aypera  est  similiter  de  feudo  dicti 
domini  Comitis.  Et  predicta  recognovit  et  confessus  fuit  dictus  Jo- 
hannes ut  supra,  asserens  se  paratum  a  nobis  nomine  dicti  domini 
Comitis  recipere  investituram  nomine  feudi  de  predictis  ac  ipsam  inves- 
tituram  requirens  cum  instancia  atque  petens.  Nos  autem  dictus  Judex 
predictam  recognitionem  et  confessionem  recepimus,  salvo  jure  dicti 
domini  Comitis,  presente  Huberto  Rocie  procuratore  dicti  domini 
Comitis  et  ipso  nomine  dicti  domini  Comitis  protestante  dictum  feudum 
cecidisse  in  commisum  et  apertum  fore  dicto  domino  Comiti  quia  dicta 
confessio  non  est  facta  nee  dicta  investitura  petita  per  dictum  Johannem 
infra  tempus  legitimum.  Et  salva  protestatione  recepimus  predictas  ut 
supra.  In  quorum  omnium  testimonium  sigillum  Curie  Sabaudie  duxi- 
mus  presentibus  apponendum.  Datum  apud  Cameram  die  Jovis  post 
festum  Sancte  Lucie  Virginis  anno  Domini  m°  cc°  lxx°  ix°. 

Seal  lost,  but  seal-string  left. 

[Original :  Archivio  di  Stato,  Turin,  Prov.  de  Maurienne,  Paq.  i. 
Cuines,  No.  i.] 


NOTES    ON    THE    MAPS 


I.     The  dominions  of  the  House  of  Savoy — Turin,  c.  1080. 

{a)     Borders  of  the   counties  held    by  the  House  of  Savoy  in 
Burgundy  shown  thus  : —         

Demesne-lands  of  the  House  of  Savoy  in  Burgundy,  for  the 
possession  of  which,  c.  1000-80,  there  is  evidence,  under- 
lined thus  : —         Les  Echelles 

{b)     Borders   of  the  counties    held    by  the  Ardoinids  in   Italy 
shown  thus  : —         —  •  —  •  — •  •  — 

Demesne-lands  of  the  Ardoinids  in  Italy  between  950  and 
1080  underlined  thus  : —         Pollenzo 

(Much  of  these  had  been  alienated  to  monasteries  by  1080.) 


II.     The  dominions  of  the  House  of  Savoy,  c.  1189. 

(a)     Border  (approximate  only)  of  Humbert  Ill's  lands  in  1050 
shown  thus  :  

ib)     Border  of  Humbert   Ill's   acquisitions    in   Italy,    c.    1168, 
shown  thus  : —         —  •  —  •  —  •  — 

{c)     Demesne-towns  of  Humbert  III  in  his  Italian  acquisitions, 
c.  1 1 80,  underlined  thus  : —         Miradolo 

{d)     Practically     independent     vassal     states,     etc.,     underlined 
thus  : —  Coligny 

{e)     Towns  founded  between  1189  and  1233  have  their  names 
enclosed  in  brackets  thus  : —         (Cufuo) 


H 

> 
O 
> 

O 
W 

D 

O 

[-H 

o 

o 

c 

2 

o 


=  o 

0    1)0 

O^  § 
cO 


^o 

lO  C   _ 

P2  O  O 
>  XI 
C  J2 


rj2  2 
■4;  " 

<;  o 

O  IS    rt 


Mo 


^^       ^ 


rU-o 


.2  S 

-=  .£  TT 


>r5  O 

27?^ 


s;  !j  o  -  <5  o 

o        <J 
c      < 


I 
Oi    C    O 

"C  3  - 

<       ° 


1)  ^ 


-  &° 

T — 

3  c 

C    tJ3 


<  72 

000 

pqU 


-T3    O      . 

£       o 
I! 


O 


O 


w-  ** 


CJ  o 


O   lU   o 

.p«  " 
^^"^  r 

^  0,0 


Oh^ 


<  £  5 
.2  = 

~  a* 

^"^ 


rt  CO 

II  — 


<i 


lu 


"*— '        ^^ 

(U 

-d:: 

u   0   rt 

^^-i! 

-  s  s 

O-^jr 

Ufe  0 

^     1^ 

-  U 

<u   si 

c    >- 

a^ 

ai  - 

hS 


h2 


■C.2  e 


•<,<i 


II -I 


User 

ffl        CO        CL 


rs   O   HJ  ^-   ^         o  '^ 

<         2  o 


a 

TO    M   < 


Jr.  u  «*  c  _». 


V 

4> 

< 

< 

II 

>-< 

s 

'V 

m 

ri 
m 

INDEX 


Aar  I,  2  &c. 

Abbondance  87,  279,   293 

Acqiii   127,  369 

Adalard   142 

Adalbero  13 

Adalbert  11,  90 

Adalbert  the  Otbertine  176 

Adalbert-Atto  142  &c. 

Adalegilda  60,  121 

Adalelmus  109  &c. 

Adela  or  Adalegilda  42,  60,   121 

Adelaide,  Countess  189-251,  281 

Adelaide,  daughter  of  Amadeus  II  205, 

211,  242 
Adelaide,  daughter  of  Humbert  II  277 
Adelaide,  wife  of  Amadeus  III  284,  313 
Adelaide  de  Salins  108 
Adelaide  of  Burgundy  6 
Adelaide  of  Swabia   249 
Adelaide  or  Alice,  daughter  of  Amadeus 

III  87,  284,  294,  295,  313 
Adelania  42 
Adrian,   Pope  323 
Agaune  or  Agaunum  91,  92,  299 
Agiltrude  12 

Agnes,  Countess  of  the  Genevois  313 
Agnes,  daughter  of  Duke  William  VII 

231,  270 
Agnes,  daughter  of  Humbert  II  277 
Agnes,  daughter  of  Manfred  II  386,  389 
Agnes,  daughter  of  Peter  I  205,  241,  242 
Agnes,   Empress  222 
Agnes  of  Vermandois  210 
Aiguebelle  98,   124  et  passim 
Aiguesmortes  407 
Aillon  351,  432 
Aime  442 

Aimeric  de  Brian9on  269 
Ain  75,  268,  377  &c. 
Airasca  364 

Aix-les-bains  14,  94,  95,  340 
Alba   132,    142  ct  passim 
Albaretto   161 
Albdiga  407 

Alhenga,    132,    142  el  passim 
Alberic,  Bp  of  Como  184,   185 
Alberic  Taillefer  of  Toulouse  329 
Albert  435 


Albissola  406 

Albon   119  &c. 

Alby  86 

Aldiud  10,  67 

Aleramids  127,   128  &c. 

Alessandria  337,  342,  360  &c. 

Alexander  II,  Pope  229  &c. 

Alexander  III,  Pope  327,  427 

Alfonso  II  of  Aragon  337 

Alfonso  IX  382 

Alice,  Countess  of  Saluzzo  387,  389,  398 

Alice,  daughter  of  Amadeus  III,  v.  Ade- 
laide 

Alineus   133,   136  &c. 

AUinge  or  Allinges  87,  299,  307,  435 

Almese  157,   184,  287 

Alphonse,  regent  of  the  Dauphine  329, 
337 

Alpignano  347,  447 

Alric,  Bp  of  Asti  149,  166,  169,  214 
&c. 

Altessano  273 

Amadeus  I  40,  41,  42,  57,   121  &c. 

Amadeus  I  of  the  Genevois  321 

Amadeus  II  231,   235,  242,  243  &c. 

Amadeus  III  60,  80,  171,  202  et  passim 

Amadeus  IV   199  &c.,  414 

Amadeus  V  80,   314,  423  &c. 

Amadeus  VIII  439 

Amadeus,  Abp  of  Lyons  295 

Amadeus,  Bp  of  Maurienne  417 

Amadeus,  son  of  Anscari  II   137 

Amadeus,  son  of  Count  Thomas  347, 
386,   4O4,   406  &c. 

Amadeus  d'Hauterive  307,  311  &c. 

Amadeus  of  Mosezzo  114 

Amalfredus  76 

Amberieux  75 

Ambilly  87 

Ambronay  77,  268 

Ameysin,  family  of  307 

Amizo  8,   179 

Anacletus,  anti-Pope  288 

Anjou  339 

Anna,  wife  of  Amadeus  IV  392 

Annecy  15,  86,   268 

Anno,  Abp  of  Cologne  226 

Annone  163,  228,  233,  256,  337  &c. 


P.  O. 


31 


482 


Index 


Anscar  or  Anscari   1 14 

Anscari  II    137,    138 

Anscarids  11,  267,  358 

Anse  21,  77 

Anselda  148 

Anselm   10 

Anselm,  Bp  of  Aosta  10,  90 

Anselm  di  Brusaporcelli  379 

Anselm  of  St  Maurice  299 

Anselmids   10,   88 

Ansgarde   134  &c. 

Antioch  312 

Aosta   I  et  passim 

Apennines  365,   402,  406 

Apremont  340 

Apulia  235 

Aquitaine   175,   291 

Arbert,    Bp   of    Turin    288,    289,    290, 

391 
Archembald  de  Bourbon  281 
Ardicino   150 

Ardizzo  di  Barge  300,  307 
Ardizzone  di  Piossasco  367,   369 
Ardoin  I   133 
Ardoin  II    133,    135 
Ardoin  III  Glabrio  5,   136,    137  &c. 
Ardoin  IV  148,   149  &c. 
Ardoin  V   149,   151,    162,   302  &c. 
Ardoin  di  Valperga  362,   364 
Ardoin  of  Ivrea   13,    103 
Ardoinids   129-189  &c. 
Arduin  of  Neustria  134,   135 
Arelate  kingdom  88 
Arguello   161 
Ariald  227 

Aribert,  Abp  of  Milan   176,    i86,  216 
Arlembald  235 
Aries  344,   390 

Arnulf  of  Milan   168,    169,    170 
Arve  86,  268 
Arvieres  87,   297,   299 
Asti   127,   142,   163  et  passim 
Asligiano  371 
Attalia  312 

Atto,  Abp  of  Milan  235 
Atto,  son  of  Manfred   I    166 
Atto  of  Canossa,  v.  Adalbert-Atto 
Auchilia  or  Aucilia  42,  60,   71,   123 
Augsburg  273 
Aulphs  87,   272,   273,  293 
Aurade  130,   132,   138,   227  &c. 
Auvergne  3 1 1 
Auxonne  324 
Avigliana   151,   157,   233,  286,   287,  308, 

348,  357  &c. 
Avranches  134 
Ayent  92 

Aymon  42,   44  &c. 
Aymon  I  of  the  Genevois  107,  268,  270, 

278  &c. 
Aymon,    Abp    of    Tarentaise    372,   425, 

426,  427 


Aymon,  Bp  of  Sion  29,  42  &c.,   123 
Aymon,  son  of  Count  Thomas  410,  4 14, 

417 
Aymon  de  Brian9on  269 
Aymon  de  Grandson  390,  391 
Aymon  de  Pontverre  399 
Aymon  de  Rumilly  437 
Aymon  of  Belley  42,  44,  81,   122 
Aymon  of  Pierreforte  42,  59,  95 
Azieux  76 

Azzo  VI  of  Este  352 
Azzo,  son  of  Manfred  I   149 
Azzo  the  Otbertine  239 

Bagnes  429 

Bagnolo  394,   395,  397,  409 

Baldric  257 

Bamberg   1 6 

Baratonia  247,   286,  362,   395 

Barbarossa   321 

Barcelona  423 

Bard  35,  89  &c. 

Barge  136,  286,  380,  386,   389  &c. 

Basel  I,   356,  373  &c. 

Bauge  268 

Bauges  95,  298 

Bavaria  12 

Bayeux   134 

Beatrice,  daughter  of  Amadeus  397,  398 

Beatrice,  daughter  of  Count  Thomas  392, 

418 
Beatrice,  daughter  of  Guigues  V  329 
Beatrice,  daughter   of  Otto  of  Franche 

Comte  372,  374 
Beatrice,  daughter  of  Peter  II  82 
Beatrice,    daughter   of    Kaynald    III    of 

Franche  Comte  321,  324 
Beatrice,   wife  of  Count  Thomas  416 
Beatrice,  wife  of  Humbert  III  345,  416 
Beaujeu  78,  268,   377,  425 
Beaurepaire  81 
Belbo  160,   188,  403,  412 
Belegrim   1 44 
Bellecombe  99 
Bellevaux  272  &c. 

Belley  11,  38,  66,  264,  265,  271  et  passim 
Benedict  II  of  Chiusa  234,  241,  248,  249, 

254.  338 
Benedict  VIII,   Pope  153 
Benedict  IX,  Pope  71 
Benevello  161 
Benevento  125,  332 
Benzo,  Bp  of  Alba  229,  245,   246,   254 
Berengar  I  of  Friuli  126 
Berengar  II   of  Italy  11,  90,   10 1,    11 4, 

138 
Berlio,  Bp  of  Belley  61,  295 
Berlio  de  Chambery  443,  451 
Bernard  of  Pavia   151,    164 
Bernezzo  370,   380,   396,   397 
Berold   no,   417 
Bersatorio  400 


Index 


483 


Bersezio  396,  398 

Bertha,  wife  of  Henry  IV  66,  207,  231, 
249.   253,   255 

Bertha,  wife  of  Ulric-Manfred  164,  207 

Berthold  IV  of  Zahringen  320,  321,  324, 
422  &c. 

Berthold  V  of  Zahringen  372,   373,  374 
&c. 

Berthold  of  Carinthia  236 

Bertrand,  Cardinal-Legate  391 

Besan9on  38,  321,  324,  328  &c. 

Biandrate  332,  333,  362,  384,  400,  409 
&c. 

Billiat  303 

Bingham  418 

Blonay  307,   373,  376,   381 

Bocozel  or  Boczozel  58,  79,  307,  435 

Bogis  (?  Bauges)  307 

Boniface  I  of  Montferrat  361,  369,  370, 

371.  379'  380  &c. 
Boniface  I  of  Vasto  205,  210,  255,  258, 

274 
Boniface  II  of  Montferrat  409 
Boniface,  son  of  Count  Thomas  417,  418 
Boniface  of  Cravesana  210 
Boniface  of  Incisa  210 
Boniface  of  Saluzzo  188,  368,   386 
Boniface  of  Tuscany  34,  35 
Bonino  405 
Borgo  S.   Dalmazzo  135,  361,  377,  396, 

397.  412 
Borgo  S.  Donnino  288,  404 
Bosia  160 

Boso,  King  of  Provence  loi,  108 
Boso,  son  of  Ardoin  V  151,  176  &c. 
Boso,  Viscount  359  &c. ,  377,   378 
Boso  de  Chatillon  271 
Boso  of  Sion  300 
Bosphorus  311 
Bossolasco  161 
Bourgoin  79,  268  &c. 
Boves  159,  274,  370,  380 
Bra  149,  395,  396,  398,  400 
Braban9on  328 
Brandizzo   158 
Bredolo    130,    142,    159,   228,   250,  258, 

274  &c. 
Breme   and   Breme-Novalesa    137,    138, 

144,   147 
Brenner  142,   176,   279,  404 
Brenod  77 
Bresse  268  &c. 
Bressieux-le-haut   106 
Brian^on  99,   269,  443,  444 
Brieg  92,  281 
Briga  162 
Brindisi  311 
Brion   78 
Brixen  244,   245 
Brondello  386 
Bruchsal    10 
Brunengo,  Bp  of  Asti  127 


BrusaporcelJi   159,    274,  368,   379,   380 
Bugey  23,   76,   268  et  passim 
Burchard  II,   Abp  of  Lyons   lo 
Burchard    III,    Abp    of   Lyons,    son    of 

Humbert  Whitehands  35,  40,  42,  44, 

72,   73,    122,   226 
Burchard,  Abp  of  Vienne  8,  10,  82,  116 
Burchard,   Bp  of  Lausanne  245 
Burchard  de  Montresor  252,  657 
Burdinus  282 
Burgundii   i 
Burgundy  i  e(  passim 
Buriasco  157 
Burie  or  Burier  376,  429 
Busca  258,   389,  390,  395,  397,    398 
Buthier  88,  89 
Buzi  245,   254 

Cadalus  229,  230 

Calamandrana  403,  404 

Calixtus  II,   Pope  270,    282,  290 

Camo  160 

Campania  248 

Canal  de  Savieres  84 

Canavese  103,   iii,  273,  274,  336 

Canelli  233 

Canischio  251 

Canossa   142,    148,  239,   242 

Canossans  127,   128  lic. 

Canterbury  418 

Capetians  262 

Caponnay  107 

Caprasio  179 

Caputlacense  92,  v.  Chablais 

Caraglio  135,   136,  380 

Caramagna   152,  154,   155,  158,  206,  226 

Caranta  368 

Carassone   159 

Carignano  1 58,  287,  336,  348,  349,  362  &c. 

Carinthia   168 

Carloman  135 

Carmagnola  158,   208  &c. 

Carolingians  69,  251 

Carpi ce   157,  404 

Carretto  161 

Casale  280,   369,  387 

Casalgrasso   158 

Casanova  383 

Caselle  286 

Castellamonte  273,  274,  336,  395 

Castiglione  Tinella   160 

Castino   160 

Cavallerleone  181 

Cavallermaggiore  233 

Caverzago   164 

Cavoretto  287,  336,  367 

Cavour   135,  367,  395  &c. 

Celle  396 

Centallo  386 

Cercenasco  158 

Ceresole  Alba  158 

Cervere  136 


31- 


484 


Index 


Cesana  225,   ^22 

Ceva  160,  258 

Chablais  226,  268,  356,  373,  374  &c. 

Chabons  80 

Chalaux  114 

Challant  440 

Chambery  3,  15,  307,  414,  429  &c. 

Chambuerc  433,  434,  446 

Champagne  33 

Champery  310 

Chanaz  443 

Charancieu  79 

Charbonniere  98 

Charlemagne  3,  262,  319,  452 

Charles,  Bp  of  Turin  322 

Charles  of  Anjou  392,  406,  419 

Charles  the  Bald  134 

Charles  the  Fat  126 

Charles-Constantine  5,  14,   104 

Chatelard  95 

Chatillon  89,  340,  430,  440,  444 

Chatonnay  58,  79 

Cheplungreen  382 

Chezeneuve  82 

Chezery  85,  296,  307 

Chiavrie  202 

Chieri  132,  158,  252,  258,  336,  362  &c. 

Chillon  92,  298,  373,  375  &c. 

Chiusa    152,    166,    182,    234,    252,    253, 

276,  336  &c. 
Chivasso  166,   361,  410,  413 
Chophinguen  382 
Chuzelles  107 
Cirie  395.  4" 

Cistercians  278,  288,  293,  294 
dementia,  wife  of  Humbert  III  329 
Cluny  69,   106,   121 
Cly  430,  440 
Coazze   157 
Codevilla  162 
Coise  61,  70,  237 
Col  Argentera  or  Col  d'Argentiere  131, 

361,  364,  412 
Col  de  Tamie  283,  284 
Col  di  Tenda  131 
Coligny  78,   268,   373,  425 
CoUegno  287,  336,  349,  409  &c. 
Cologne  172 
Combe  417 
Como  170,   185,   343 
Condove  202 

Conflans   15,  94,   300,   307 
Conflens  429 
Cono,  Bp  of  Sion  346 
Conon,  Bp  of  Maurienne  270,  278 
Conrad  II,  Emp.  24,  25,  26,  27,  28,  30, 

37,  88,    175,  218,  219,   228  &c. 
Conrad  III,  King  of  the  Romans  284, 

309,  311  &c. 
Conrad  of  Metz  395 
Conrad  of  Ventimiglia  163 
Conrad  of  Zahringen  285,   288,  320 


Conrad  the  Peaceful  5,   10 

Constance,  peace  of  346,   349 

Constance,  wife  of  Henry  VI  349 

Constantinople  139,  311,  371 

Conthey  93,  429 

Cornillon   77,   358,   377,   435 

Corp  429 

Cortemiglia   160 

Cossano  160 

Costigliole  386 

Cottian  Alps  237 

Coutances  134 

Cravesana  258 

Crema  348 

Cremona  219,  404,  405 

Cuines  442 

Cumiana  400 

Cuneo  258,  361,  370,  371,  372,  379  &c. 

Cunibert,  Bp   of  Turin  229,    231,    233, 

234,  241,  246  &c. 
Cuorgne  158,  251 
Cusy  87 
Cyprus  312 

Dado  150 

d'Ameysins  437 

Dauphine  131,  225,  269,  408,  423  &c. 

David  de  la  Chambre  436 

de  Boges  436 

de  Brian9on  437 

de  Challant  444 

de  la  Chambre  437,  442,  443 

de  Mascot  435,  444 

de  Miolans  437,  440,  442 

de  Seyssel  437,  443 

de  Vaquieras  417 

Denis,  Bp  of  Piacenza  240 

Desiderius  179,  248 

Deville  on  the  Meuse  33 

Dietrich  the  Carthusian  348  &c. 

Dolomieux  77 

Dora  Baltea  89,   130 

Dora  Riparia  158,   225 

Dorches  87 

Drusard  364 

Durazzo  311 

Eau  Froide  92,  399 

Ebal  440 

Ebal  de  Granson  282 

Eclose  82 

Edessa  309 

Edward,   Count  438 

Egihic  137 

Ekbert  I  of  Brunswick  231,  232 

Eleanor,  wife  of  Henry  III  of  England 

392 
Eleanor,  wife  of  Louis  VII  291 
Elizabeth,   Queen  245 
Elster  245 
Embrun  282 
Epierre  443 


Index 


485 


Equestricus  68,  85,  267 
Ermenfrid,  Bp  of  Sion  94 
Ermengarde  13,  42,   107 
Ermentrude,  widow  of  Alberic  II   12 
Ernest  of  Austria  205 
Eudes  II  of  Champagne  19  ff.,  174,  219 
Eudes  III  of  French  Burgundy  374 
Eugenius  III,  Pope  290,  309,  310,  432 
Euphemia  109 
Everard  de  Bard  271 
Evian  87,  376 
Exilles  225 

Fabrica  168 

Faidiva,  wife  of  Humbert  III  318 

Falavier  81 

Faramans  80 

Farigliano   160 

Faucigny  86,   121,   268,   390,   392,  417, 

420 
Faverges  87 
Favrega   161 
Felicetto  386 
Fenestrelle  131,   158,  226 
Ferrara  383 
Feterne  87,  435 
Flanders  132,  417 
Florence  402 
Fontane  395,  400 
Fontanile  370,  380,  386 
P'orez  75 

Frainet  of  Provence  1 1 1 
Franche  Comte  2,  237,   267,  268,  418, 

423,  428  &c. 
Francia  2 

Francia  Neustria   134 
Francis  de  la  Rochette  443,  447 
Frankfort  232 
Fraxinetum  in,   139 
Frederick    I    Barbarossa    84,    254,    319, 

331,   342,  426,  431  &c. 
Frederick  II  of  Hohenstaufen  382,  385, 

390  &c. 
Frederick  of  Montbeliard  205,  233,  244, 

248,  250 
Freinet  5,  145 
Frejus  97 

Freney  in  Maurienne  1 1 1 
Frossasco  157,   190,  201,  204,  275  &c. 
Fruttuaria  230,  233,  244,  252,  258,  274 

&c. 
Fulcard  145 
Fulda  357 
Furka  Pass  92 

Gampel  375 

Gap  282 

Garda,  Lake  of  142 

Garessio  160 

Garnier  114 

Gavi  402,  403,  404 

Gelasius  II,  Pope  282 


Geneva  i,  9,  267,  268,  297,   307  &c. 
Geneva,  Lake  of  i,  282,  373,  375,  376, 

428 
Genevois  38,  86,  112,  242,  265,  267,  268, 

298,  425  &c. 
Genoa  402,  403,  404  &c. 
Genoese  in 
Genola   136 
Geoffrey  59,  181 
Geoffrey  de  Grammont  271 
Geoffrey  de  Rancogne  312 
Geotit'rey  Plantagenet  of  Anjou  314 
Gerard  I  of  Macon  324,  328 
Gerard  d'Allinge  272,   300 
Gerard  of  Monforte  186 
Gerbaix  loi,  433 
Gerberga  11 

Gerold  II  of  the  Genevois  121,  242 
Gerold  of  the  Genevois  35 
Gertrude,    wife    of    Humbert    III    319, 

329 
Gesso  368 
Gezo  166 
Giacomo  199,  202 

Giacomo  di  Carisio  of  Turin  384,  395 
Giaveno   157,  276,   383 
Giffre  86,  268 
Gillion  de  Rovoree  272 
Girelm,  Bp  of  Asti  228,  250 
Gisela  12,   150,  270,  276,  281 
Giselbert  150 
Giso,   Bp  of  Aosta  102 
Glaber,   Ralph   183 
Godfrey,  imperial  chancellor  347 
Godfrey  of  Lorraine  222 
Golfe  de  St  Tropez  5 
Gosfrid  135 

Gozelo  of  Lorraine  220 
Graisivaudan  79,  95,  307,  340,  425 
Gran  Paradiso  89 
Grand  Colombier  87 
Grande  Chartreuse  84,   335 
Grattapaglia  407 
Great    St    Bernard   226,    230,   231,   279, 

298,   302,  310,  372  &c. 
Gregory  VII,  Pope  233,  235,  241,  244, 

283  &c. 
Gregory  IX,  Pope  408,  413 
Gregory  of  Montelongo  418 
Grenoble  i,  6,  79,    131,   139,  328 
Gresy  94,  95 
Grimsel  Pass  375 
Gualfred  di  Piossasco  343 
Gualfred  di  Scalenghe  411 
Guibert  of  Ravenna  244 
Guichard  III  of  Beaujeu  295 
Guichard  IV  of  Beaujeu  377 
Guichenon  205 

Guide,  Abp  of  Milan  227,   229 
Guido,  son  of  Manfred  1   149,   166 
Guido  de  Candiaco  76 
Guido  of  Romagnano  151,   176 


486 


Index 


Guiers  83,  84 

Guiflfred  de  Bogis  270,  271 

Guigonids  69,  80,   119,  227,  258 

Guigues  I  of  Albon,  225,  226 

Guigues  III  36,  269 

Guigues  IV  284,  292 

Guigues  V  322 

Guigues  VI  Andrew  392,  409 

Guigues  de  Chevelu  or  Chevellud  433 

Guigues  de  Domene  307,  321 

Guigues  de  Gerbaix  434 

Guiscard,   Robert  235,  249 

Guitelm,  Bp  of  Turin  247,  249 

Gundobad  2 

Guntilda   137 

Guntram  89 

Guy  I  of  Franche  Comte  12 

Guy,  Abp  of  Vienne'  268,  270,  282,  v. 

Calixtus  II 
Guy  de  Chambery  270,  271 
Guy  de  Miribel  270,  278 
Guy  of  Spoleto  126 

Habsburgs  392,  428 

Hague  23 

Hartmann  the  Elder  of  Kyburg  392 

Hartmann  von  Siwenheich  334 

Haut-Burcin  106 

Hautcret  375 

Hautecombe  60,  296,  299,  308,  416,  421, 

433 
Henry  I  of  France  33 
Henry  I,  Bp  of  Lausanne  18 
Henry  II,  Emp.  338,  423,  428,  433,  436 
Henry  III,  Emp.  38,    153,   252,  392  &c. 
Henry  IV,  Emp.  94,  207,  231,  232,  242, 

244  &c. 
Henry  V,  Emp.  85,  278,  282  &c. 
Henry  VI,  Emp.  94,   372,   425 
Henry  VII,  Emp.  423 
Henry,  son  of  Frederick  II  392 
Henry  de  Blonay  376 
Henry  of  Baratonia  386 
Henry  of  Carretto  398,  405,  406,   407 
Henry  of  French  Burgundy   12 
Henry  of  Luserna  285 
Henry  of  Montferrat  189,  221 
Henry  the  Lion  of  Saxony  329,  452 
Herbert,  Bp  of  Aosta  299,  300 
Herbert  of  Vermandois  115 
Herman,  Cardinal  233 
Herman  of  Swabia  153,    161,   189 
Heyrieux  75 
Hohenstaufen  69,  91,  264,  281,  284,  288 

&c. 
Holy  Land  281,   309 
Honorius  II,   Pope  297 
Honorius  III,  Pope  393 
Hubert  of  Castellamonte   171 
Hubert  the  Red  of  Vercelli   172 
Hucbert-Hubert  113  ff. 
Hugh  III  of  French  Burgundy  357 


Hugh,  Count  ii3ff. 

Hugh,  son  of  Manfred  I   149,   166 

Hugh  Capet  4 

Hugh  de  Mascot  442 

Hugh  d'Oisy  319 

Hugh  of  Cluny  237 

Hugh  of  Provence  5,   113,   137,   138 

Hugues  le  Descousu   179 

Humbert  I  Whitehands   1-124  &c. 

Humbert  II  261-278  &c. 

Humbert  III  316-352  &c. 

Humbert  III  of  Beaujeu  297 

Humbert  IV  of  Beaujeu  340 

Humbert,  son  of  Count  Thomas  417 

Humbert  de  Cevins  436 

Humbert  de  Grammont  of  Geneva  284 

Humbert  of  Belley  41-74  ^z.,v-  Humbert 

Whitehands 
Humbert  of  the  Genevois  390 

Iberian  peninsula  293 

Ingelheim  216 

Ingo,  Bp  of  Asti  228,  229 

Immula  231,   232 

Innimond    or    Innimont    78,    272,    431, 

432,   435.  447 
Innocent  II,  Pope  295,  297 
Innocent  III,  Pope  384 
Innocent  IV,  Pope  418 
Isere  78,   94,  99 
Isle  d'Abeau  81 
Isle  de  Ciers  84,   105 
Israel,  Abp  of  Tarentaise  301 
Ivrea   15,   90,   130,   165,   233,  273,   362, 

367  &c. 

Jalogny   109 

Jerusalem  309 

Joan,  wife  of  Amadeus  II  242 

John  XIII,  Pope  144 

John  de  Bourbon  394 

John  of  England  84,  338 

John  Vincenzo   179 

Jonages  76 

Josserand,   Bp  of  Belley   109,    122 

Juliana,  daughter  of  Amadeus  III  313 

Jura  I,   296,   372,   375  &c. 

Jurane  Burgundy  114 

Kelts  88 

Kyburg  383,   392,   418 

La  Burbanche  6i 

La  Chambre  98,  271,   273,  440,  443 

La  C6te-St-Andre  79,   80,   105,    107 

La  Motte-Ser\-olex  83,   95 

La   Tour-du-Pin    77,   79,   8t,   268,   383, 

391   &c. 
La  Verpilliere  81 
Lac  d'Annecy  86,   284 
Lac  du  Bourget  60,  83,  95,   296 
Ladislaus  of  Hungary  207 


Index 


487 


Lagnasco  135 

Lagnieu  in  Bugey  268 

Lambert  of  Chaunois  11,    12 

Lancia,   Marquesses  390 

Landric,   Bp  of  Sion  376,   398,   414 

Landry  of  Nevers  12 

Landulf  227 

Lanfranc  150 

Langhe  130,   131,   361,  400 

Languedoc  2,  266,   390 

Languedoil  266,  390 

Laodicea  312 

Lausanne  i ,  9,  267,  270,  373,  383,  393  &c. 

Le  Bourget  60,  65,  69,  74,  95,  121,  296, 

298,  299,  435 
Le  Pont-de-Beauvoisin  79,  83 
Lechfeld  143 

Leger,  Abp  of  Vienne  98,  224 
Legnano  343 
Leisse  60,  95 
Lemenc  15,  95 
Lemnia  394 

Leo  IX,  Pope  122,   124 
Leo,   Bp  of  Vercelli  167  &c. 
Leotald  of  Macon  113 
Lequi  Borria  161 
Lequio  400 
Les  Abrets  80 
Les  Echelles  69,  79,  80  &c. 
Les  Eperres  82 
Les  Marches  94,  95 
Les  Villards  442 
Lesegno  160 
Lesser  Burgundy  324 
Leuk  93,   281,   301,  302,  375 
Levaldigi  228,   250 
Lewis  III  the  Blind  4,    10 1 
Leyni   158 
Lhuis  75,   78,  268 
Liege  418 
Lieudieu  80 
Liguria   132 
Limoges  339 
Lisieux  134 

Little  St  Bernard  13,   269,  270 
Lodi  216,  331,   385 
Loffingen  382 
Loges  15 
Lombardy  15,  245,  274,  288,   399,  408, 

410,  413,  452  &c. 
Lomello  137 
Lonipnes  87 
Lonza  281 

Lorraine  33,  219  &c. 
Losa  357,  419,  437 
Lothar  II   137,  138,  284,  285,  287,  288, 

289 
Lotharingia  i 
Louis  III  of  France   135 
Louis  VI  of  France  291 
Louis  VII  of  P'rance  291,  309 
Louis  de  Faucigny  121 


Louis  the  Stammerer  135 
Lucius  III,  Pope  295 
Lugrins  429 
Luitprand   1 39 
Luserna  392 

Lyonnais  75,   425,   428  &c. 
Lyons  i,  2,  75,  268,  310,  377,  392,  402, 
418  &c. 

Macello  158 

Macon  12,  267,  324 

Macot  444 

Maeander  312 

Magliano   159 

Magra  181 

Maiolus  of  Cluny   146 

Majes  of  Albon,  wife  of  Amadeus  III 

313 
Malocampo  216 
Maltacena  95 

Manasses,  Abp  of  Aries  114,   115 
Manasses  de  Coligny  243 
Manfred  I  of  Turin  137,   148,   149,   150 

&c. 
Manfred  II  of  Romagnano  211 
Manfred    II   of  Saluzzo    361,   370,  371, 

379.  380,  384,  385  &c. 
Manfred   III  of  Saluzzo   380,  386,   387, 

388,  389,  395,  396,  397  &c. 
Mantua  239 

Manzano-Salmour  370,   371 
Margaret,  daughter  of  Amadeus  III  313 
Margaret,    daughter    of    Count   Thomas 

392,  418 
Margaret,      granddaughter      of      Count 

Thomas   409 
Margaret,  wife   of  Count   Thomas   358, 

407,  416,  417,  420 
Markward  349 
Marseilles  3,   407,  408 
Martesana  216 
Martigny  91,   299,  425 
Martin   1 1 1 
Mathl  184,  395 
Matilda,  Queen  6,   107 
Matilda,   wife  of  AflTonso  I  293 
Matilda,  wife  of  Amadeus  III    292,  v. 

Majes 
Matilda,  wife  of  Guigues  III  292 
Matilda  of  Tuscany  222,  239,  244,  247, 

251,  280 
Mattie  395 
Maubec  82 
Maurienne  2,  37,  63,  97,  264,  265,  270, 

271,  278,  290,  291,  302,  303,  308  &c. 
Mayence  i8 
Mediterranean  5 
Mentouilles  227,  258 
Meran  374 

Merlo  of  Avigliana  275,   287 
Merlo  of  Piossasco  275 
Meyzieux  76 


488 


Index 


Michael  IV  i86 

Milan  132,  186,  385,  387,  400,  404,  406, 

412 
Milo,  Bp  of   Turin  and  Abp  of   Milan 

347.  362 
Miolans  15,  303,  433,  443 
Mions  57,  76,  114 
Miradolo   157,  336,  351,  357,  370,  400, 

427.  430,   432,  435.  447 
Miribel  78,  268 
Mocchie  184 
Modane  98 
Moirenc  415 
Mombaruzzo  412 
Mombello  337 
Monaco  406 

Moncalieri  394,  413,  414 
Mondovi  371,   372,  385 
Monforte  161,    186 
Mont  Blanc  86 
Mont  Cenis  3,  130,  225,  238,  274,  298, 

306,  419,  437  &c. 
Mont  du  Grand  Colombier  297 
Mont   Genevre    13,    131,   147,  225,  269, 

282,  310,  410,  454 
Monlagnes  des  Maures  139 
Montbeliard  257,   258 
Mont-du-Chat  59,  84,  95 
Monte  Benedetto  432 
Monte  Casino  248 
Monte  Pirchiriano   179,  240 
Montebello  343 
Monterminod  59,  95 
Montferrand  in  Auvergne  339 
Montferrat  130,  132,  322,  336,  371,  380, 

387.  388  &c. 
Montfort  451 

Montiglio  in  Montferrat  366 
Mont-Joux  139 
Montjovet  442,  444 
Montniayeur  340 
Montmelian    94,    237,     292,    421,    435, 

439 
Montossolo  336,  369,  396,  399 
Montreux  376 
Montriond  39 
Moral  34 
Morestel  75,   77 
Morgex  399 
Mosezzo  137 
Moslems  309 
Moudon   in   Vaud    372,   373,    374,    375, 

376.   381.  382,  429 
Mofitiers  99,  429 
Musinasco  158,  411 

Nantelm  de  Charbonnieres  270 
Nantelm  de  Miolans  270,   272,  443 
Nantua  75,  77,  78,  205,  268,  377 
Napoleon  88,   350 
Naters  93,  281,  301,  302,  375 
Nauchila,  58,  v.   Auchilia 


Neuchatel   i,   34 

New-Chablais    36,    86,    267,    299,    306, 

425  &c. 
New  Coligny  78,  377,  392  &c. 
Nicaea  311 
Nichola  416 
Nicholas  II,   Pope  229 
Nicosia  312 
Nijmegen  33 
Noli  405 
Normandy  262 
Novalaise    79,    80,    84,    340,    433,    434» 

44O  &c. 
Novalesa  5,  97,  in,  112,  132,  147,  237, 

273,  282  &c. 
Novalesa-Breme  184,  252,  v.  Breme 
Novara  170,   172,   362,  397  &c. 
Nur-ed-din  309 
Nus  442 
Nyon  58,  85 

Oberto  di  Ozeno  413 

Oberto  of  Castellamonte  286 

Octavian  Ubaldini,  Cardl.  4 18 

Octavion  113,    115 

Oddo  I  of  Turin  39,  40,  42,  121,   148, 

149,   i8x,  225,   233  &c. 
Oddo  II  166,   181,  243,   250,  255 
Oddo,  Bp  of  Asti  243,   244,  250,  256 
Oddo,   Bp  of  Belley  42 
Oddo,   Prior  iSr 

Odilo  of  Cluny  60,    109,    184  &c. 
Odo   134  &c. 
Officia   137 

Old-Chablais   100,   298,   425,  429,   441 
Olloules  407 
Opizzo  of  Biandrate  166 
Orba  173,   176  &c. 
Orbassano  or  Orbazzano  157,   184 
Orbe  9 

Oreo   130,   158 
Ornacieux-l'hote  80 
Orsieres  92,    146 
Otbert  163 

Otbertines  127,   128  &c. 
Othonellum   299 
Ottingen  68 

Otto  I,   Emp.  5,  89,   142,   143,  253 
Otto  II,   Emp.  89,   127 
Otto  III,  Emp.    13,  121,   127,  128 
Otto  IV,  Emp.  372,  383,  384,  385,  390, 

393 
Otto  Boverio  395 
Otto  de  la  Chambre  270 
Otto  del  Carretto  385 
Otto  of  Tranche  Comte  357,  372 
Otto  of  Meran  374,  375 
Otto  of  Schweinfurt  217 
Otto-William    11  ff.,    172,   267,   274 
Oulx   131,   183,   225,  226,  274,  310,  429, 

439,  449  &c. 
Oyonnax  75 


Index 


489 


Paesana  136 

Pallantum  152 

Pancalieri  158 

Pandulf  417 

Parma   148,   164 

Paschal  II,  Pope  279  &c. 

Patarines  227,   229,   235,   256  &c. 

Pavia  13,  132,  133,    137,    138,   142,  227, 

327,   387 
Pavone  149 
Payeme  9,  35 
Pays  de  Vaud  39 
Perosa  285 
Peter  I  of  Savoy  62,  223,  231,  241,  244, 

302 
Peter  II  of  Savoy  78,  79,  374,  375,  382, 

417,  418,  419,  435  &c. 
Peter,  Abp  of  Lyons  288,   295  &c. 
Peter,  Abp  of  Tarentaise  298,  299,  300, 

301 
Peter,  Bp  of  Asti  109 
Peter,  son  of  Marquess  Frederick  250, 

255 
Peter  d'Allinge  300,  436 
Peter  de  Boges  436 
Peter  de  la  Porte  St  Ours  271 
Peter  de  Vinet  321 
Peter  di  Tovet  436,  437 
Peter  of  Cluny  291 
Peter  of  Masino  400 
Peter  of  Turin  336 
Petit  Bugey  83,  443  &c. 
Petrus  de  Bovet  436,  v.   P.   di  Tovet 
Petrus  de  Thovenco  436,  v.  P.  di  Tovet 
Petrus  de  Toreto  436,  v.   P.  di  Tovet 
Philip    II,    King   of    the    Romans   372, 

373.  374.  381,  383 
Philip,   Elect  of  Ravenna  418 
Philip,  son  of  Count  Thomas  417,  418 
Philip  Augustus  of  France  415,  416 
Piacentino  164 

Piacenza  164,  219,  236,   346,  387 
Pianezza  287,  336,  409,  447  &c. 
Piedmont   132,    139  et  passim 
Pierre  d'Allinge  436 
Pierre  de  la  Chambre  445,  447 
Pierre  de   Rivaz   108 
Pierre  de  Seyssel  443 
Pierrechatel  84,  340,  425,  435 
Pietra  161 

Pinerolo  112,  157,  208,  258,  275,  360  &c. 
Piobesi  347,  396  &c. 
Piossasco  158,  233,  259,  286,  287,  336  &c. 
Piozzo  I59' 
Piz  di  Cuneo  368 
Plebs  Martyrum  183 
Po  89,  288,   360,  385,  389,  394  &c. 
Pollenzo  136,   181,  252  &c. 
Pombia   137,    165 
Pompeiana  i6i 
Ponce  de  Chamousset  274 
Ponce  de  Conflens  437 


Poncin  78 

Ponte  386 

Pont-en-Royans  79 

Pontremoli  405 

Ponzo   de  Camoseto  274,  v.    Ponce   de 

Chamousset 
Porto  Maurizio  132,  i6i 
Portois  1 1 
Pragelato  227 
Prangarda  148,  153,  166 
Priola  160,   184  &c. 
Provence    i,    6,    iii,    344,    418,    423, 

428  &c. 
Pupet  14 

Quaranta  379,  380 
(juattordio  274,   403,  404 

Rabusta  436 

Racconigi  158,  396 

Raimbald   149 

Rainer  or  Liprand  of  Vercelli  249 

Ranier  of  Montferrat  270,  281 

Ranuccio  1 1 1 

Ratisbon  34 

Ravenna  130 

Raymond  V  of  Toulouse  329,  337  &c. 

RaymondBerengar  II  328 

Raymond-Berengar  III  337 

Raymond-Berengar  IV  392 

Raynald  I  of  Franche  Comte   12,   39 

Raynald  III  of  Franche  Comte  320  &c. 

Raynald,  Abp  of  Cologne  328 

Raynald,    son   of  Humbert  II  93,   277, 

297,  302 
Reculver  417 
Reggio  148 
Reuss  2 

Revello  136,   151,  233,  386 
Reventin    107 
Revigliasco  367,  396 
Rhine  i 
Rhineland  132 

Rhone  i,  2,  268,  296,  307,   377  &c. 
Richard  II  of  Normandy  12 
Richard,   Count   14,    104,   107 
Richard  of  Cornwall  382,  392 
Richard  of  Troyes  114 
Richilda,  Empress  289 
Richilda,  wife  of  Boniface  150 
Richmond  418 
Rivalta    157,    i8i,    184,    287,   289,    347, 

370,  386  &c. 
Riviera  405,  407,  408 
Rivoli  252,  364  &c. 
Robald  of  Provence  1 1 1 
Robaldus,  son  of  Alineus  136 
Robert  Guiscard  235,  249,  v.   Guiscard 
Robert  the  Pious  of  France  12,    174 
Rocca  d'Arazzo  228,  250 
Rocca  Pandolfo  288 
Rocchetta  160 


490 


Index 


Roddeno  i6i 

Kodulph  391 

Roger  I  of  Aurade  133,   135,   136  &c. 

Roger  II  of  Aurade  136  &c. 

Roger,  Bp  of  Lausanne  374,  381 

Roland  1 1 1 

Roland,   Cardinal  327 

Romagna  404 

Romagnano    149,    176,    259,    273,    285, 

385.   386,  394.  396,  4".  427  &c. 
Romainmotier  85,  282  &c. 
Romanisio  136,   152,  274,  367  &c. 
Romans  62,   99,   108 
Romanus  139 

Rome  60,  226,  247,  248,  256 
Romont  375 

Roncaglia  172,  288,   325,   370,   380,  386 
Rosilde  108 

Rossillon  84,   339,  425,  435 
Rothone  123 
Rotlindis   109 
Rougemont  78 
Rozo,  Bp  of  Asti  145 
Rubiana  157,   184 
Rudolf  I  de  Faucigny  306 
Rudolf  I  of  Burgundy   1,  2  &c. 
Rudolf  II  of  Burgundy  2,   4  &c. 
Rudolf  III  of  Burgundy  3,  6,  95,   105, 

172,  177,  264,  269,  423,  425  &c. 
Rudolf  of   Rheinfelden  205,    231,    232, 

240,   281 
Rue  382 

Ruffino  di  Salmour  386 
Rumilly  307 

S.   Ambrogio  275,  282,   285,    308,    333, 

370,  380,  429 
S.  Andrea  147 
S.  Aniano  163,   182 
S.  Antonino  di  Susa  241 
S.   Antonio  di  Ranverso  351,  445 
S.  Benigno  di  Fruttuaria  169,  233,  248 
S.  Bonifazio  290 
S.  Dalmazzo    228,   250,    274,    361,  368, 

397 
S.  Giorio  430 
S.  Giusto  153,  154,   183,  252,  287,  291, 

303,  310,  385,  419,  451 
S.  Mauro  di  Pulcherada   157,   184 
S.   Michele  della  Chiusa  165,  233,  246, 

248,  276 
S.  Remo  161 

S.  Salvatore  of  Turin  182,  252,  273 
S.  Solutore  182,  226,  286,  326 
S.  Stefano  151,    160,  410 
S.   Stefano  di  Genova  205 
Saillon  93,   307,   399,   414,   435  &c. 
Salbertrand  225 
Salmour  259 

Saluzzo  133,  136,  188,  233,  258,  332  &c. 
Salvan  299 
Sambuy  157,   184 


Samson  144 

Sancha  392 

Sangano  360 

Sanihia  172 

Saone  i,  355,   377  &c. 

Saorge  162 

Saracens  3,  4,    1 1 1 

Sarre  89 

Savigliano   135,  361,  367,  372,  385,  412 

Savigny  61 

Savona  161,   255,   405,  406,   407 

Savoy  2,  6,   11  et  passim 

Saxum  443 

Scalenghe  396,  41 1 

Scandinavia  89 

Scarnafigi  136,  390,  398 

Sembrancher   146 

Semine  85 

Seprio  216 

Septeme  81  &c. 

Sermorens  11,   38,  66,  265  &c. 

Seyssel  87,  284,  390  &c. 

Sierre  92 

Sigifred  173,  v.  Suffred 

Sion  38,  63,  91,  267  &c. 

Sobo,  Abp  of  Vienne  107 

Solere  36 

Somano  161 

Sommariva  del  Bosco   158,  274 

Sophia,  daughter  of  Humbert  III  352 

Sparone  169  &c. 

Speyer  236  &c. 

Spoleto  127 

SS.  Apostoli  of  Asti  182 

St  Alban-de-Cirisin-sur- Rhone  105  &c. 

St  Alban-de-Roche  82  &c. 

St  Ambrose  227 

St  Anselm  271,  273 

St  Anthelm  328,  330,  342,  425  &c. 

St  Andre-le-bas  58,  63,   107,   117 

St  Andre-le-haut  117 

St  Benigne  de  Dijon  233 

St  Bernard  of  Clairvaux  284,   309  &c. 

St  Cassin  15 

St  Chaffre  62 

St  Claude  77 

St  Dominic  420 

St  Etienne  de  Cuines  442 

St  Etienne  de-Geoire  79 

St  Flavian   183 

St  Francis  420 

St  Gall  5 

St  Genix  58,  83  &c. 

St  Georges  d'Esperanches  81,  106  &c. 

St  Guarin  of  Sion  301  &c. 

St  Hugh  of  Grenoble  268,  271,  297,  307 

St  Innocent  226 

St  Jacques  443 

St  Jean  d'Albigny   15 

St  Jean-de-Maurienne  122,  429,  443,  445 

St  Jean-du-Bournay  79,  So,   81  &c. 

St  Julien  98,  307 


Index 


491 


St  Just  of  Beauvais  183  &c. 

St  Just  of  Oulx  183 

St  Laurence  of  Grenoble  62 

St  Laurent-du-Pont  79  &c. 

St  Louis  IX  of  France  392 

St  Maiolus  of  Cluny  5,   146 

St  Marie  of  Les  Echelles  62 

St  Mark's  at  Venice  348 

St  Maurice  5,  35,  38,   63,   87,    88,  226, 

293.  299,  307>   328  &c. 
St  Michael's-on-Wyre  417 
St  Ours  88 
St  Oyend  77 
St  Peter  231 
St  Peter  II  of  Tarentaise  307,  325,  328, 

426 
St    Peter    Daniian    189,    230,    232,    233, 

246,  253 
St  Peter's  Monaster}'  at  Turin   181 
St  Peter's  Nunnery  at  Vienne  268 
St  Pierre  d'Albigny  15 
St  Pierre-de-Chandieu  76 
St  Rambert  75,   77,   83,   268,   358,   392 
St  Remy  442 
St  Sorlin  78 

St  Sulpice  en  Bugey  294,  295  &c. 
St  Symphorien  d'Ozon  75,  76,  100,  119, 

429 
St  Tiiomas  of  Canterbury  355 
St  Victor  of  Geneva  85,   271  &c. 
St  Vitalis  226 
Sta  Agata  208 

Sta  Maria  di  Pinerolo  226  &c. 
Sta  Maria  di  Susa  290 
Sta  Maria  d'lvrea  273 
Stephen  11  of  Auxonne  324,  372,   374 
Stephen  X,   Pope  65 
Strasburg  15,   19 
Stura  di  Ala  286 
Stura   di  Demonte   130,   131,   135,   159, 

361,  370,  386,  412 
Stura  di  Lanzo  286  &c. 
Stura  di  Viu  286 
Suffred  203,  v.   Sigifred 
Suisse  Romande  88,  377,  418,  419 
Superga  296 
Supponito  166 
Susa  5,   121,  131  et  passim 
Susians  304,  305,   306 
Swabia  138,  320 
Sylvester,  Pope  179 
Syria  309 

Taillefer  of  the  Dauphine  345,  v.  Alberic 

Talloires  87 

Taniie  298,  307 

Tanaro  130,  131,  159,  161,  188,  250,  361 

&c. 
Tarantasca  136 

Tarentaise  8,  22,   89,  269  et  passim 
Taurus  312 
Tedald,  Abp  of  Turin  235 


Tedald  of  Tuscany   148,    168 

Tenda  132,   162,  361 

Terraneo  134,   135 

Terre  de  la  Montagne  77  &c. 

Terre  d'Empire  78 

Testona  252,  258,  360,  362  &c. 

Teto  188 

Theobald,  Abp  of  Vienne  81,    113 

Theobald,   Bp  of  Maurienne  62 

Theoberga   104,    114  &c. 

Thessalonica  371 

Thoire  268,  358,  373,  377,   391,  399 

Thomas   I   of  Savoy  87,  98,    199,   345, 

ihi  ^t  passim 
Thomas  of  Annone  364,  365 
Thomas  the  younger  415,  416,   417,  425 
Thonon  87,  429 
Tolvon  80,    113,    115 
Torcelli  233 
Torinese  337 
Torretta  287,  348  &c. 
Tortona   164,   274,   383,  402,   403 
Touraine  256,   257 
Tours  256 
Traize  84 
Traversetolo  148 
Treviso  404 
Tribur  217,    231,   236 
Trofarello  396 
Troiesin  114,   115 
Troyes  19,    102,   113,  116 
Turin  39,  97,   123  et  passim 
Tuscany  127,  404 

Ubaldini,  Octavian,  Cardl.  418 

Uberto  103 

Ubertus  59 

Ugines  399 

Ulric  X  of  Bregenz  207 

Ulric,   brother  of  Burchard   lo,   44,    117 

&c. 
Ulric  di  Rivalta  344,  349  &c. 
Ulric-Manfred   II    149,    151,    210,    253, 

254  &c. 
Ulric  of  Romagnano  153 
Ulrichen  375 
Umbertus  59 
Upert  or   Upertus,  son  of  Charles-Con- 

stantine  14,    104 

Val  d'Aosta  130,  276,  359,  377,  431  &c. 

Val  d'Entremont  91,  93,  310 

Val  de  Bagnes  93,  318,  431,  432 

Val  de  la  Thuile  89 

Val  de  Miolans  302,  303,  433 

Val  di  Locano   158 

Val  di  Maira  136,   183 

Val  di  Mathl  395 

Val  di  Stura  136,  412 

Val  di  Stura  di  Ala  395,  409,  411,  427 

Val  di  Stura  di  Demonte  388,  396 

Val  di  Susa  97,   130,  258  et  passim 


492 


Index 


Val  di  Varaita  386 

Val  Matri  395 

Val-Komey  78,  83,  86,  87,  297,  303  i»;c. 

Valence  307,  408,  409,  418 

Vallais  2,   301,  307,  375  &c. 

Valle  del  Po  386 

Valle  di  Fenestrelle  258,  285 

Valle  di  Susa  427 

Valloriate   135 

Valserine  85,   282,   296  &c. 

Varais  11 

Varey  78 

Vasto  162 

Vaud  18,  266,   377  &c. 

Vaudois  92,   130 

Vayes   184 

Venecius  436 

Venice  185,   344 

Venissieux  76 

Ventimiglia  131,  142,    161,  406 

Vercelli    165,    167,   219,   239,  249,    309, 

363.  369.  383.  384-  387.  393  &c. 
Verdun-sur-le-Doubs  22 
Vennenagna  131 
Verona  121,    122,  290,   404 
Verzuolo  386 
Vevey  9,  92,   381 
Vezelay  309 
Vezeronce  84 
Vico  361 
Vicolongo  137 
Victor  IV,  anti-Pope  327 
Victor  Amadeus  II  296 
Vienne  14,  61,  81,  83,  268,  391  &c. 
Viennois  38,  75,   79,  269,  425,  428 
Vigerus  201 
Vignolo  380,  396,  397 
Vigone  i?2,   is8,   184,  286  &c. 
Villa  386' 

Villafranca  397,  411,  413,  447 
Villanova  Solaro  158 
Villard-Beranger  99  &c. 
Villaregia  205 
Villars  268,   391 

Ville  at  Challant  378,  430,  437 
Villefranche  376,  429 
Villeneuve  376,  429,  447 
Villeneuve-de-Marc  80  &c. 
Villette-Serpaize  82 
Vinay  79 

Vincenzo,  John  179 
Vinovo  157 


Virieu  79,  81 

Virieu-le-Grand  78,  87,  294,  303,  435 

Virle  158,  386 

V^oirons  79,  80,   106  &c. 

Volvera  157,   184,  203,   286,   287  &c. 

Walpert  445 

Walter  de  Brian9on  271 

Walter  di  Piossasco  287 

Welf  of  Bavaria  236 

Wibert  of  Pombia  172 

Willa  or  Wilterma   113,    114,   115 

William   I    of    the   Genevois   268,    350, 

372.  373,  416,  420 
William  II  of  the  Genevois   374,   391, 

420 
William  II  of  Provence  12,  267 
William  IV  of  Franche  Comte  320,  321 
William  V  of  Macon  356 
William    V  the  Great  of  Aquitaine   12, 

23,   174  &c. 
William,  Bp  of  Maurienne  330 
William,  son  of  Count  Thomas  408,  409, 

417,  418  &c. 
William,  son  of  Humbert  II  276 
William  de  Bard  344 
William  de  Baux  390 
William  de  Boczozel  271 
William  de  Closeaz  391 
William  de  la  Chambre  270 
William  de  Montjoux  271 
William  of  Busca  390,   398 
William  of  Cravesana  2 1 1 
William  the  Old  of  Montferrat  311,  323 

&c.,   332 
William  of  Montferrat  371,   385 
William  of  Nevvburgh  416 
William  the  Aleramid  176 
William   the   Child   of  Franche   Comte 

320 
William  the  Conqueror  262 
Winchester  418 
Worms  232,   282,  311,  424 
Wiirzburg  172 

Ychilda  148  &c. 

Yenne  83,  247,  271,  307,  308  &c. 

Yverdun  382 

Zahringen  93,  207,  317,  320,  324,  358  &c. 
Zengy  of  Mosul  309 
Zurich   18  &c. 


CAMBRIDGE:    PRINTED    BY   JOHN    CLAY,    M.A.    AT   THE    UNIVERSITY    PRESS. 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

305  De  Neve  Drive  -  Parking  Lot  17  •  Box  951388 

LOS  ANGELES,  CALIFORNIA  90095-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library  from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


MAY  0  2  2005 


m  ■<. 


^EBSITY  OF  CA     RIVERSIDE  LIBRARY 


3  1210  00582  3495 


^MMtiMiSSiH 


l^AflVERiiTV  OF 

.r7S 


^  lupoA    > 


~^  ^ 


MAI'    II       Tlu-   Savoyard    Lands.,-.    JiSo 


VlN^OJlf 


MaI'   1.     The  Savoyard  Lands, 


lil^Eli^lOE 
mmm  ot  mmm 

riBBVliA 


A     000  596  611     4